Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of MR. SPEAKER from this day's sitting.

Whereupon MR. HAROLD WALKER, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Redundancies

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of redundancies in Scotland between 1977 and 1979 and between 1980 and 1984, respectively.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The number of redundancies in Scotland involving 10 or more workers, notified to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur, averaged 29,186 per annum for the period 1977 to 1979 and 47,207 per annum for the period 1980 to 1984. There are no statistics available where the number of redundancies is below 10.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition believe that these figures are totally unacceptable and that they will not be acceptable during the lifetime of this Parliament? Does he recognise that the result of the revaluation will be a tremendous increase in rates which will lead to further redundancies because many companies will go to the wall? When will the Government and the Minister do something about it, in particular his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is our mouthpiece at Cabinet level?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that unemployment doubled during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. The Government's policies are designed to create a competitive economy. Output and employment rose last year. Business surveys are encouraging about the prospects for Scottish industry in 1985. As for rates affecting industry, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. Manufacturing industry will benefit from the revaluation.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Opposition Members to try to make political capital out of the increase in the number of redundancies during the lifetime of this Government, as many of them are the logical consequence of high inflation, low investment and uncompetitive work practices of the previous Labour Government? Does my hon. Friend also agree that we should be talking not about redundancies but about Scotland's share of the 350,000 new jobs which have been created during the last year?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Employment has been rising and the prospects shown by the business surveys are good. I was very surprised that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) did not mention the increase in the work force at Terex or the fact that Honeywell has received contracts worth £35·2 million since January 1985. It does nobody any good to talk Scotland down.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise the importance to Scottish employment of the 80,000 jobs in the financial sector? If so, will he welcome the amendment to the Trustee Savings Bank Bill and ensure that the Government do not seek to reverse it at a later stage?

Mr. Stewart: Of course, the financial sector is very important to the Scottish economy, as is the service sector as a whole. Two out of three Scots are now employed in the service industries. As for the amendment made last night in another place to the Trustee Savings Bank Bill, no doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the position.

Agricultural Colleges

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed reduction in funding for the agricultural colleges in Scotland set out in the receent White Paper on public expenditure.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Representations have been received from a number of organisations and individuals expressing concern about the proposed reduction in funding.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is this not arguably the Government's most short-sighted public expenditure cut so far? Is the Minister aware that more, not less, advice and research are needed in the present agricultural situation in Scotland? If the industry, and especially small farmers, can satisfy the Government that they cannot raise the £3·4 million cut by 1987, as proposed in the White Paper, will he reconsider the proposal so as to preserve this invaluable service?

Mr. MacKay: I accept that the service is invaluable to the industry, but it is worth pointing out that in 1987–88, when the reductions in public funding are fully effective, about £34 million of public money will still be going to research and development and advisory services in Scotland. That is a very considerable sum.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in times of difficulty, when expenditure everywhere is under strain, farmers appreciate that every aspect of agricultural support must be examined, but that they expect continued support for upland and less favoured areas, where it is difficult to provide jobs, rather than for colleges?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of keeping control of public spending, because farmers are among the groups most directly affected by higher interest rates which may result directly from Governments allowing public expenditure to get out of control. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State is having talks with the Scottish National Farmers Union and the chairman of the Council of Scottish Agricultural Colleges and with college principals to ensure that the service provided is kept in as good a state as possible.

Mr. Donald Stewart: As the EEC has designated Scotland as having 87 per cent. less favoured areas for agricultural purposes, is not the Government's proposal totally backward and reactionary? Will the Minister explain why for 1987–88 the cuts in Scotland will be 41 per cent. compared with only 20 per cent. in England?

Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman will have to get himself a better calculator. The percentage reduction for Scotland is 41·5 per cent. and the MAFF reduction for England is also 41·5 per cent., so he will have to take the chip off his shoulder about this matter.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm what the Minister of State said in a letter to me — that the grant for Auchincruive college in my constituency is to be reduced by £110,000 in the current year? How does he think that that can be achieved without redundancies? Will he also confirm that the Department has approved the setting up of an organisation, known as the Friends of Auchincruive, to try to raise money for the college through raffles and jumble sales? Is that how education is to be funded under the Tories?

Mr. MacKay: As I recall, the figures given in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers showed that spending this year would be greater than in the last year of the Labour Government, so perhaps we are doing better than his right hon. and hon. Friends were doing in 1978–79. We believe that the industry should make some contribution to the services, and we look forward to seeing the extent of that contribution before the colleges work out what savings will have to be made.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that it is no surprise to the Opposition that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that education was not important? Is he further aware that his answer to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) showed the same abysmal ignorance as the Minister of State has shown about the difference between the position in Scotland and that in England? Has he still not realised that the advisory services in Scotland are closely linked with the educational function, which is not the case in England, and that a 41 per cent. cut in advisory services will thus have a direct impact on education? Is he proud of that?

Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record of the exchanges in the past few minutes, he will realise that some of his remarks are quite wide of the truth. There is no reduction in the funding of the colleges' education function, although I concede that, due to the way in which their activities are integrated, there may be a marginal effect on the education facilities, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State will be considering that aspect with the principals of the colleges and others involved.

Agricultural Capital Grants

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the impact of the reduction of agricultural capital grants.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister

of State discussed this subject with representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland both on 10 January and at the union's annual general meeting on 8 March.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that a cut in capital cuts for agriculture will have a worrying effect not only on farmers but on small contractors in many rural areas who do the fencing and drainage work? There will be an effect on the whole rural economy. If, because of a reduction in the number of applications for grant, the saving in the present financial year is more than was originally budgeted for, will the right hon. Gentleman review grant rates later in the financial year?

Mr. Younger: We review the matter frequently anyway. Agriculture receives a massive amount of Exchequer support. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the capital grants figures. Last year, help to agriculture in Scotland was augmented by the doubling of the suckler cow premium, the enhancement of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the Highland Board area and the extension of the less favoured areas. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about contractors being affected by changes in rates of grant, but the matter must be put in perspective. The amounts of grant are still very high in comparison with any other industry. For instance, there is a grant of 70 per cent. for field drainage in less favoured areas. That is a most generous rate of grant.

Mr. Corrie: If my right hon. Friend meets the NFU in the near future, will he discuss the ridiculous suggestion that milk quotas should be transferred from Scotland to any other country within Great Britain? It is vital that every litre of milk quota allocated to Scotland should stay in Scotland. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that that will be so.

Mr. Younger: That matter is under consideration, and I shall of course discuss it with my colleagues.
I should like to correct a figure that I gave a few moments ago. The figure for field drainage grant is 50 per cent., not 70 per cent.

Ambulance Service

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Scottish ambulance service.

Mr. John MacKay: Last year my Department issued a document inviting views on the present organisation and management structure of the Scottish ambulance service. The comments received are being considered, and the outcome will be announced later.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are great suspicions that the purpose of the consultative document is eventually to hand the service over to private cowboy profiteers, and that considerable pressure is being put on Conservative Back Benchers so that that aim can be achieved? Will he give a categorical assurance that that is not the Government's purpose and that the service will not be handed over to private commercial enterprises, as there is abundant evidence that it is an efficient public enterprise?

Mr. MacKay: The document issued last August discussed whether alterations in the service might improve the service for patients and lead to a more economic and efficient use of resources, especially in the light of the


growth of the use of day hospitals and the increasing demands on the ambulance service in running patients to and from day hospitals. Private contractors are already used to a limited extent in some areas for non-emergency routine transport,and there may be scope to extend their use. However, there is no intention at the back of my mind to privatise the whole ambulance service in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman's fertile imagination suggests.

Mr. Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in present circumstances the Scottish ambulace service is chronically under-funded? In my constituency, which has the fastest rate of growth of any part of Britain, new communities which have been asking for ambulance services for years have still not been allocated any. When a road accident occurs, there is sometimes a delay of over an hour before an ambulance arrives. Proposals to close rural maternity hospitals will further increase the strain on the ambulance service, as has the expansion of Aberdeen airport over the past few years. The extra strains have not been adequately supported or funded and there has been no adequate response to representations made.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should check the facts. Current expenditure allocated for this financial year for the Scottish ambulance service is £24·8 million, compared with £11·3 million in 1978–79, when the Liberal party was keeping the Labour Government in power. We have expanded the ambulance service, which now employes more than 2,000 men and has over 800 vehicles. I accept that there is still some way to go in some aspects of the service, but a particular problem is the increasing number of patients who wish to be transported to day hospitals.
If there is a special problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I should be delighted if he would write to me or speak to the chairman of the Common Service Agency, Sir Simpson Stevenson.

Unemployment

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the most recent unemployment figures.

Mr. Younger: Although the total numbers unemployed in Scotland fell in March, the seasonally adjusted trend was less favourable. Scotland is expected to share in the 3·5 per cent. growth forecast for the United Kingdom economy this year, and it is our success in producing and selling which will result in more employment opportunities.

Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the latest figures from Strathclyde show that male unemployment in the Govan and Kinning Park area is now no less than 35 per cent.? Is he further aware that similar figures can be quoted for many other parts of Scotland? In those circumstances, it is quite offensive for the Secretary of State to describe a Budget which will do nothing for Scottish employment as tailor-made for Scotland. If he cannot promise us the major changes in economic policy that are required, can he at least tell us what he is doing about particular threats to jobs in Scotland, such as the 1,000 and more at the British Rail workshops in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and the jobs at the Rowntree

Mackintosh factory at Edinburgh, which are to he transferred to England? What is he doing to save those jobs?

Mr. Younger: I share the right hon. Gentleman's great anxiety about local levels of unemployment in his constituency. That is why his area, which is in the centre of Glasgow, still has the highest priority in Scotland and the highest rates of regional assistance. The right hon. Gentleman will have been as delighted as I was at the Govan shipyard winning a £40 million order for a North sea passenger freight ferry, which will be the biggest passenger ship built on the Clyde for 12 years. The right hon. Gentleman has more reason than most to know how difficult it is to keep businesses competitive when the Government keep putting more impositions on it, such as the Labour Government's decision to impose the national insurance surcharge. Industry in Scotland benefits from the rate revaluation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember it.

Mr. Malone: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for the unemployed in Scotland is for the climate for industry to become ever more competitive? Has that not been so under the present Government, and does my right hon. Friend agree that that is why there has been so much inward investment in Scotland in the past 12 months?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. The flood of inward investment—"flood" is the word—in the past 18 months or two years shows clearly that the Government's easing of the burdens on industry is producing results. It is worth remembering how Scottish industry would be faring today if it had still to pay the national insurance surcharge — the tax on jobs — which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) and his party imposed when in office.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not a disgrace that many miners have been dismissed, not because they are SS officers or friends of the royals, but because they wanted to defend jobs and living standards? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that Jack Kane, the former Lord Provost of Edinburgh, be given a further mandate so that the conciliation service in the industry can take effect? Will the right hon. Gentleman support that as a democratic right?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. Some of his constituents are probably worried. Employment with the National Coal Board is a matter for the NCB and its employees, according to the normal procedures. If someone feels that he has been treated unfairly, he should apply for an industrial tribunal to hear his case in the normal way.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the level of unemployment in Blairgowrie is now just below that of Dundee, and that whereas Dundee enjoys special status, Blairgowrie does not? We find that, with the recent revaluation, Perthshire and Angus are again required to sustain Dundee. We are looking for some sanity and fairness. Will my right hon. Friend speak to his colleagues about travel-to-work areas, as Pitlochry and Blairgowrie can never be described as travel-to-work areas?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's views. There are many places in the country where people would


wish to see revisions of the travel-to-work areas. This is always looked at very sympathetically when new evidence is produced.

Mr. Wilson: If the Secretary of State believes in the value of indigenous as well as inward investment, will he be more forthright than his hon. Friends in relation to the Trustee Savings Bank in Scotland, which possesses something like £2·5 billion of assets which, if properly deployed, would be advantageous to the Scottish economy? Will he support the view that the TSB should remain a Scottish institution, in the same way as the Scottish Office gave its support to the Royal Bank of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: As to the events which took place in another place yesterday, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to go further, except to say that the Government will consider the results of that decision. As to the TSB Bill, there has been close consultation with everyone concerned for at least two years, and at all points TSB Scotland has made it clear that it favours the arrangements at present in the Bill.

Mr. Canavan: How much more Scottish unemployment will be caused by today's Government statement on privatising the naval dockyards? Is there no limit to this Government's doctrinaire privatisation programme? Can we eventually expect to see the British armed forces sold to Securicor?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman may think that is humourous, but he must have forgotten that the policy of the Labour party is to close down the Trident and Polaris programmes, which means that if there were again to be a Labour Government, which is extremely unlikely, there would be a jobs disaster at both Rosyth and Faslane. The Opposition must face that fact.

Mr. Maclean: For the benefit of those who do not wish to hear, will my right hon. Friend again confirm that the best way to keep down unemployment in Scotland is to ensure the right climate in which industry can compete, by reducing the burdens of national insurance and taxation? Was not the recent Budget one of the best ways of helping to reduce unemployment in Scotland for a long time?

Mr. Younger: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the Budget measures were specifically designed to encourage employers to take on new employees, particularly young ones. The extension of youth employment schemes will also be of great benefit to the unemployed. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that the measures that the Government have been taking over a considerable number of years have led to a great increase in confidence. As the latest CBI survey shows, it is expected that 370,000 new jobs will be created in the United Kingdom in 1985. There is no doubt that investment intentions and confidence throughout Scottish industry are now better than in the past.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with a view to securing employment in the Scottish brewing industry, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries has launched a bid for Matthew Brown pubs and breweries in the north-west of England? Is he aware that Scottish and Newcastle has refused point blank to give any undertakings on both the future of the rural pubs in Cumbria, where 100 are at risk, and on the jobs of those involved in the two breweries in Cumbria? In the light of

my protest, will the right hon. Gentleman now go to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask that this matter be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? We do not want the bid to go through.

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as he said, this is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Teachers (Pay)

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Educational Institute for Scotland about salaries.

Mr. Younger: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 13 March, the general secretary of the Educational Institute for Scotland was present when I met representatives of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education on 28 January and 15 February 1985. I have had no subsequent approach for a separate meeting, although I stand prepared at any time to discuss matters of mutual concern with the EIS.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by holding out for an independent inquiry, the teachers have provoked and prolonged this strike? Will he make one more effort to bring them together around the table under the proper negotiating procedures to conclude this issue in order to prevent further hindrance to education for our children and difficulty over examinations?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the EIS is now the only teaching union that is holding out against my suggestion that its real and deeply felt grievances should be considered properly by the joint negotiating committee. I also share my hon. Friend's hope that somehow the EIS may be persuaded to attend discussions to air those grievances. I have made it clear that I am only too willing to help.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that in our view teachers have an overwhelming case for an independent review? Does he recognise that all the evidence of the last few weeks shows that the teachers are hardening in their determination to advance their just case? Does the Secretary of State further accept that we cannot continue in this way, as it is doing immense damage to our children's education? There is a responsibility on him to come forward with a major new initiative.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, which we all share, but he, as a reasonable person, must agree that during this protracted and unnecessary dispute I have continually made it clear that I do not deny the fact that teachers have grievances; nor do I refuse to discuss those grievances with them. One of their unions refuses to discuss the matter through the normal negotiating procedures. That is deplorable, especially as children's education is suffering.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the wide-ranging review within the framework of the SJNC remains on offer to the teachers, and that they have nothing to lose and probably a considerable amount to gain by accepting that offer?

Mr. Younger: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. I have often made that offer, and I am reluctantly


forced to the view that the EIS has rejected it. It is getting more difficult every day to find funds to put the matter right. I am still willing to do my best to help.

Mr. Eadie: Is not the Secretary of State guilty of double standards? He chastises the teachers for not using what he describes as the normal conciliation machinery, yet his Government have refused to allow victimised miners to take advantage of the conciliation machinery which has been established in the mining industry since 1946. If the right hon. Gentleman is so vociferous in supporting normal conciliation machinery, why does he not come to the Dispatch Box and defend the victimised miners' right to practice conciliation and use their consultative machinery?

Mr. Younger: The miners' strike is a completely different subject, and the Government have not done what the hon. Gentleman suggests they did. The matter of dismissed miners is entirely between the Coal Board and its employees. To draw a parallel between the teachers' dispute and the miners' strike is not a happy approach to the problem.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we have often been asked during the dispute to consider the pay standards awarded by Clegg or Houghton, we should consider what the Conservative Government have given to teachers and the increase in teachers' salaries since we came to power in 1979?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. As I have stressed in many letters to teachers, it is a myth that teachers' pay has fallen behind the cost of living since 1979—indeed, they have done rather better. It is worth drawing that to their attention, while still agreeing that they may feel that they are overworked. I am only too ready to discuss and to help to solve their problems.

Mr. Ewing: May I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State, which may help him out of the difficulties which he has created for teachers, parents and pupils in Scotland? Does he support the Tory-controlled Lothian regional council in setting up its emergency teaching centres and paying teachers £50 a day to work there? If so, why does he not make the same offer as a basis on which to begin negotiations with the EIS?

Mr. Younger: I have not made such a specific offer as that. I have offered — this cannot be stressed too much — that if the teachers produce within their negotiating committee a package covering pay and conditions of service, I shall consider such a package sympathetically and try to find a way of helping to implement it. As for Lothian education committee, it is responsible for dealing with the education of children in its area, and if it has taken sensible measures to provide some education for children who are deprived of it because of the teachers' strike action, it has the right to do so.

Drugs Control

Mr. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the level of action being taken to curb the trade in hard drugs in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Strenuous efforts are being made with considerable success by the police and other agencies to curb traffic in illegal drugs. My right

hon. Friend is continuing to give high priority to a range of measures to deal with the serious consequences of drug trafficking.

Mr. Wilson: Although I appreciate the stance that the Government are taking on this matter, I must ask whether they fully realise the nature of the raging epidemic in the use of hard drugs. Is the Minister aware that prevention is the best part of cure, and that only two months ago a Bangladeshi jute liner came into Dundee and was left unattended by the customs service for 24 hours, because, as a result of Government cuts, no customs officers were available in Dundee to deal with it? Does he further realise that two loads of drugs were subsequently found aboard that jute liner? In those circumstances, will he increase the money available to enhance the customs services and the police so that we manage to stop the drugs coming into the country before they do the harm that they can do?

Mr. Ancram: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are in no way complacent about the drugs problem in Scotland. As he will know, the number of customs officers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announced last year that manpower in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise would be increased by 185 posts above the previous planning level. That includes 60 temporary posts, made permanent in 1984, to enhance general preventive controls, and 100 new posts specifically to combat drug smuggling in 1985–86. I understand that the Scottish position will be considered when the deployment of those extra 100 officers is decided.

Mr. Fairbairn: In addition to all attempts to prevent the trade in hard drugs, will my hon. Friend give the widest publicity to the harm caused by soft drugs, which are not only extremely harmful in themselves but which usually lead to an escalation of abuse into the devastating area of hard drugs?

Mr. Ancram: The Government believe that so-called soft drugs are harmful in themselves and often lead to the use of hard drugs. The Government will be taking the appropriate action to prevent those drugs, as well has hard drugs, from being used.

Mr. Craigen: As prevention is better than cure in this area, is the Minister satisfied that there are adequate links among all police authorities in Scotland and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a word with the Prime Minister about giving the tackling of the drug problem a higher political priority than it has now, especially as the Prime Minister's social and economic policies tend to encourage this misuse?

Mr. Ancram: To deal with the hon. Gentleman's last question first, I do not know on what basis he makes that assertion. He will remember that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when employment was high, there was an increase in drug misuse. In countries such as Holland and Switzerland, which have high employment, drug abuse is a serious problem. I accept that intelligence and coordination are important, and we work constantly to improve them. Indeed, six of the eight police forces in Scotland have specialist drug squads, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider sympathetically requests from police authorities for increased complements to deal with drug abuse.

Regional Policy

Mr. Malone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from Grampian regional council concerning the effects of regional policy on employment in the Grampian region.

Mr. Allan Stewart: None directly, although I am aware of representations that the council has made to the Department of Trade and Industry on this subject.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is some concern that jobs are being poached from Grampian region by other areas in Scotland which receive assistance. Can he confirm that the Scottish Development Agency office in Aberdeen, which has been accused of poaching these jobs, has done no such thing? Secondly, can he confirm that that office has been instrumental in attracting substantial amounts of investment and industry into the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I can confirm that the SDA has denied allegations of poaching, and I pay tribute to its success in the north-east since opening the Aberdeen office. The agency has committed assistance to a variety of projects in the north-east, to the value of almost £8 million.

Teachers (Dispute)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received about the Scottish teachers' dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Since October 1984 to 12 April some 4,000. As my right hon. Friend told the House earlier, a very reasonable way forward is through discussion within the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. The teachers' employers, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the Professional Association of Teachers would all be prepared to begin discussions on that basis, but the Educational Institute of Scotland is proving a stumbling block.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister withdraw his ill-informed, outrageous and downright provacative circular calling for striking teachers to be sacked? Instead of looking around for scapegoats, is it not high time that the Government accepted full responsibility for the crisis in Scottish education and agreed to the setting up of an independent review of teachers' salaries, which is a reasonable and legitimate demand supported by a majority of Scottish teachers, parents and Members of Parliament? There are a few notable exceptions, such as the Tory Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and his boss, the governor-general there, who is still sufferyng from the effects of educational deprivation at Winchester.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member is a former member of the EIS—

Mr. Canavan: I am still a fully paid up member.

Mr. Stewart: Whether the hon. Gentleman is an advertisement for the Scottish teaching profession is for others to judge. I am not surprised that he is giving full support to the trade union which has taken the unprecedented action of the targeting of schools in the constituencies of Scottish Conservative Members, an action which no other trade union has yet taken. I should

have thought that Labour Members should pay more attention to the position taken by other trade unions. Everybody involved in this dispute is prepared to negotiate, except the EIS.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that the teaching unions are not prepared to participate in discussions about performance-related pay, as this would provide a possible way forward and could be helpful in negotiations? Is he suggesting that the unions look at this as a possible way out of the problem?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is referring to the issues that have been raised in England. In Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has suggested a review of pay and conditions of service through the existing negotiating machinery. He has said that if an attractive package results he would be prepared to re-order his public expenditure priorities within the Scottish block. That offer has not been made to any other group of public sector employees.

Mr. Maxton: Why does the Minister not recognise that the teachers, and the EIS in particular, might be prepared to consider the offer if the Secretary of State were to make it clear that he would guarantee any increase agreed by the negotiating machinery? Secondly, is he aware that the teachers do not trust the management side because they know that it consists of the Secretary of State and no one else, and therefore is not independent?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The management side of the SJNC consists in the main of representatives of the education authorities, with only a small minority of representatives of the Secretary of State. I believe that the offer made by my right hon. Friend is entirely fair and reasonable. It is regarded by the management as acceptable, as it has been for some time, and by two of the other unions. By continuing its action the EIS is doing harm to pupils and doing the teachers' case and prospects no good.

Rating System

Mr. Hugh Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to the reform of the rating system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had urging reform of the domestic rating system.

Mr. Ancram: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 14 March last about reform of the rating system. But I would add in response to my hon. Friend that the great majority of some 9,000 representations of various kinds which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received about rates and revaluation have also urged reform of the domestic rating system.

Mr. Brown: As I do not carry in my head the hon. Gentleman's reply in March, perhaps he will confirm that the Government have not ruled out further assistance in the short term to domestic ratepayers and the consideration even of selective assistance to commercial ratepayers. If they have not ruled out those possibilities, when will they make a statement about them, and will they make sure that the bill is picked up by the Government?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that domestic rate relief has been increased from £14 million


to £102 million and that £88 million more was put into domestic relief last year. He also knows that the adverse effect of revaluation on domestic ratepayers was some £90 million. Although, obviously, there are variations within any sector of revaluation, the effects of revaluation in the domestic sector have been largely met by the increase that has been made in domestic rate relief. I am concerned about the serious effects on some commercial enterprises. Again, there are others that have gained from the revaluation. There is at present no statutory machinery for helping those who have been affected adversely.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread desire in Scotland for a change in the rating system, which all reasonable people accept is an unfair system of raising local government revenue? Will he confirm that it is only the Conservative party that has the political will to change the rating system?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. As he knows, the Conservative party has never been happy with the domestic rating system. Last October a review was set up at ministerial level to look at the system of financing local government. The purpose of the review is to see whether a fairer, simpler and more stable system of local government financing can be found which will strengthen the accountability of local authorities while maintaining a reasonable balance between the interests of central and local government. The review is covering alternatives to domestic rating. It is also concerned with businesses which at present pay rates but do not have a corresponding voice in local government elections. It is too early to predict the outcome of these considerations.

Mr. Dewar: In respect of the commercial ratepayer, the Minister has managed to give the impression that the only factor stopping help for at least those hardest hit is the lack of any statutory machinery for doing so. May I assure him that, if he wishes to create that statutory machinery, the Opposition will give it every facility and will speed it through the House? Therefore, will he say whether he intends to move in that direction?
As for domestic rating relief, I expect that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in correspondence with me, his right hon. Friend has said that he cannot give an assurance that the present level of domestic rating relief will be held at the current level through the rest of the quinquennium. Will he reconsider that and assure us that, while there may be negotiations about the level, it will not fall below the present 8p during the remainder of the five-year period for which the present revaluation runs? If he cannot, the domestic ratepayer will have to bear a greater and greater burden.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is asking for confirmation of decisions which are not taken at this time of the year. As he knows, those decisions are taken at the appropriate time of the year. Obviously, we shall consider the position that the hon. Gentleman outlined in his question. We appreciate the fact that there are commercial enterprises which have been very hard hit by the revaluation. The House should not forget, however, that a large number of commercial enterprises have gained substantially as a result of the revaluation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State give us his explanation of this paradox?

According to Scottish Office figures, the average rates per household are somewhat lower in Scotland than in England. None the less, it is a perceived fact that rates in Scotland, property for property, and specifically in the west end of Glasgow, are much higher than comparable rates in England.

Mr. Ancram: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that ratepayers are not confined to the west end of Glasgow or, indeed, to constituencies such as mine. Council house tenants are ratepayers as well. Obviously, the preponderance of council houses in Scotland affects the figures. It would be surprising if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that we should not take council housing into account in compiling these figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Crime Statistics

Mr. Hirst: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people in the Strathclyde region were charged with serious offences in 1984; and how this figure compares with those of the previous five years.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): Taking serious offences as those prosecuted under solemn procedure, 2,287 persons were prosecuted in this way in Strathclyde region in 1984. This compares with figures of 2,297 in 1983, 2,531 in 1982, 1,774 in 1981, 2,369 in 1980 and 1,711 in 1979. Industrial action by sheriff clerks' staff in 1979 and 1981 is likely to have affected the figures for those years and for 1980 and 1982.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the disquieting extent of serious crime in Strathclyde is such that it is highly irresponsible for Strathclyde regional council to refuse to bring up police numbers to establishment strength? Will my hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial colleagues use all their influence to persuade Strathclyde regional council to employ more policemen and get them back on the beat?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Nothing in the crime figures for Strathclyde that I have given wculd justify any decision to withhold officers from the police force in Strathclyde. Last year the chief constable of Strathclyde took a number of important initiatives in crime prevention, especially in the areas of worst deprivation. I should have thought that the regional authority would want to give every possible encouragement to those initiatives.

Procurators Fiscal

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many times during the last 10 years his Department has requested or instructed a procurator fiscal to move to a new post.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: During the past 10 years, four procurators fiscal, after discussion, were requested to relinquish their commissions granted under the provisions of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 and moved to other legal posts in the procurator fiscal service.

Mr. Walker: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the procurators fiscal are concerned about the pending legislation, which they see as something that will


substantially erode their independence. Can he assure the House that when the legislation reaches the statute book it will not achieve that purpose?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is intended by the proposal in the Bill to provide greater efficiency in the administration within the procurator fiscal service. Neither the Lord Advocate nor I have any oblique or sinister motive in introducing this change. We very much prize the independence that is enjoyed by procurators fiscal in Scotland. The last thing that we would want to do is to impinge in any way upon the integrity for which procurators fiscal are rightly renowned.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that neither he nor the Lord Advocate had any oblique or sinister intention with regard to the legislation before the House. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that the position of the procurators fiscal should be maintained, why is it necessary to make any change in the law? Is it not better to quieten all the doubts of the procurators fiscal by leaving matters as they stand?

The Solicitor-General For Scotland: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in Scotland the procurator fiscal enjoys a position of considerable independence, in particular with regard to the police forces and the general public. However, for many years he has been answerable for his actions to the Lord Advocate. All that is sought to be achieved by the change is to make an improvement in the administration and organisation. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, for example, someone who is a fiscal in Stornaway will have far fewer responsibilities than a fiscal in Glasgow. We are seeking this additional power to enable there to be smooth administration.

Heavy Lorries (Traffic Offences)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in the last 12 months in relation to traffic offences by heavy lorries; and what are the comparative figures for the previous 12 months.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in the past 12 months for speeding offences by heavy lorries; and what are the comparative figures for the previous 12 months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Statistics giving the number of prosecutions for traffic offences committed in respect of heavy lorries only are not kept.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Solicitor-General explain why there was selective administration of law and order during the miners' strike? According to the information that he gave me, none of the cowboy coal convoys were convicted of speeding or dangerous driving, despite evidence submitted that those offences were taking place. Will he give an assurance that that will not happen in the future, in particular in relation to the Yuill and Dodds lorries, which got the South of Scotland Electricity Board contract by a dubious procedure, and which are careering—

Mr. Hirst: Say that outside.

Mr. Foulkes: I will. They are careering across the roads of Strathclyde, breaking them up and breaking the law. What action will the Solicitor-General take about those cowboys?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman reveals what I have always suspected. He believes that the prosecution system should be used for political purposes. That is a principle which I completely reject. There are proceedings pending with regard to one of the lorries of the firm to which he referred. For the usual and obvious reasons, I make no further comment on that case.

Mr. Maxton: How can the Solicitor-General claim that he represents the party of law and order when it is clear that during the whole of the miners' strike the lorry drivers of those companies operating in and out of Ravenscraig, on the roads in Lanarkshire—I witnessed this on several occasions—were clearly acting in the belief that they could do so outside the traffic law without expectation of prosecution? The Solicitor-General should come to the House and give us those figures. They should be available. It should not be impossible to obtain them. They would show that few of those drivers were prosecuted.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Once again, the hon. Gentleman shows that he wants to introduce a political element into prosecutions. He expects me to be able to identify those cases in which there is a political element. I cannot do that, and I would never seek to do that. I have made inquiries, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and a number of prosecutions are pending. In those circumstances, it is best for me to leave the matter until they have been heard before the court. If he says, as he has in the Chamber, that he has witnessed something, I wish that he would go and see the procurator fiscal and provide his evidence of those incidents.

Mr. Maxton: I could not see the number plates. They were covered in mud.

Mr. Buchan: The Solicitor-General is prevaricating dangerously for someone—[Interruption.] We are not asking for political prosecutions. We are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that we are not asking for political prosecutions? On the contrary, he says that he cannot identify lorries which have been stopped, sometimes charged, but not prosecuted. It is there that the political non-prosecution is taking place. We have already had promises that those deliveries will stop. We are now told that they will continue. Yuill and Dodds will deliver 8,000 tonnes a week, despite the way in which the contract was made. Will he tell his right hon. Friend that the chairman of British Steel told me that no such contract would be made, and yet it has been made? The Government are guilty of political involvement —[Interruption.]— in relation to their legal behaviour and their industrial behaviour during the strike.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have already answered a question about the independence of the procurators fiscal in Scotland. In essence, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that one or more of the procurators fiscal in Scotland have exercised a political judgment rather than a judgment of integrity in taking prosecution decisions. That is simply not the case.
There is at present a civil case, involving Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council, before the sheriff court in Kilmarnock. If there are any suggestions of political


involvement, they will be revealed by the outcome of that case rather than by any decisions taken by procurators fiscal anywhere in Scotland.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it arise from the events of yesterday? If so, I am prepared to take it after the statement.

Mr. Madden: I am most grateful.

Royal Dockyards

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future arrangements for the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth.
The royal dockyards employ some 20,000 people. Their turnover is £400 million a year. They repair all of our nuclear-powered submarines, including the Polaris force, and nearly 80 per cent. of our conventional warship fleet.
As the House is aware, there has over the years been a succession of studies and reports on the future of the dockyards. Those reports generally agreed that change was essential, but all previous attempts to introduce a changed structure have come to nothing.
The Government believe that it is essential to get full value for money from the defence budget. If we are to achieve that in the dockyards, three main conditions need to be met. First, local managers must have the freedom and authority to manage in a more competitive environment. Second, the dockyards, as suppliers of services to the fleet, must be separated clearly from their customer. Third, their financial and accounting arrangements must reflect normal commercial practice, so that the true price of the work can be properly judged.
I am today issuing an open government document, copies of which I have placed in the Library, and a consultative document to explain to those who work in the dockyards the likely consequences of change. I am not today announcing a decision on the way forward, but I am opening a period of consultation. I hope that there will be a wide, constructive and fruitful discussion over the next two or three months. My intention is to announce to the House a clear way forward before the summer recess.
The main options for change range from the creation of a trading fund to full-scale privatisation. Although it would be possible to achieve some improvements within the strategy of a trading fund within the public sector, that would not give the enterprise sufficient freedom from Civil Service constraints for it to operate efficiently in a competitive environment. The options which would provide that freedom are full privatisation or a system of commercial management under which each dockyard, while remaining in Government ownership, would be operated for a period of years by a company chosen by the Government following an open competitive process. Under either of those options the Government would insist that control remained in British hands.
It is the option of commercial management that seems to the Government to be the best way forward, since it secures continuing competition while maintaining control over the national strategic assets involved. It would require legislation. That option, like full privatisation, also offers the prospect of outside work for the dockyards from customers other than the Ministry of Defence. If implemented, we could therefore look forward to a tauter, more flourishing enterprise.
The House will recall the many successful transfers to the private sector from the public sector achieved by the Government. In all those cases the rights of employees have been protected. Similar protection would form part of a move to the private sector should the Government choose that option.
Whatever the new framework for the longer term, there is an inescapable need for adjustments to the work force in the short term in order to improve dockyard efficiency. Management will be discussing the way forward with the unions involved, starting today. The package of efficiency measures it will be looking for may involve job reductions at Devonport of about 15 per cent. and at Rosyth of about 5 per cent. Natural wastage and voluntary retirement can be expected to achieve most of the reductions sought by management, particularly at Rosyth. Compulsory redundancy will be used only in the last resort.
My Department, as would any good employer, will do all that it can to alleviate the effects of the new efficiency measures; particularly it will consider how new business and employment opportunities in these areas might be fostered, including work in support of the new dockyard organisation. I intend to ask my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, to take a particular interest in co-ordinating the efforts required in this positive approach.
These two dockyards have served the Royal Navy and the nation loyally for many generations. I wish to stress that under this Government their long-term future is assured. But in giving this assurance, and recognising the significance of the yards to their local economies, I must also expect them to be run to proper levels of efficiency. I believe that the House will accept that there is a broad agreement that change in the management of the dockyards is needed now.
I hope that all concerned will join constructively in the consultation process to assist the Government in the decisions that need to be taken. Once the difficult but short period of adjustment has been completed there will be considerable opportunities for expansion and enterprise.
I will do all I can to bring about these new opportunities

Mr. Denzil Davies: In effect, the Secretary of State's proposal will privatise the work of the royal dockyards, because the consultation exercise is completely cosmetic and a farce. This is another piece of the ideological nonsense that we get from a Government who are more concerned with their own prejudices and dogmas than with objective analyses and rational judgment. We believe that the privatisation proposal, for that is what it is, will be bad for the Royal Navy, for its ships and for those who sail in them. The proposal will be bad for those loyal workers who have worked in the dockyards; 2,000 or more will lose their jobs from today onwards, even before privatisation. At the end of the day the proposal will also be bad for the taxpayer, who will pay more for running the dockyards.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the most hairbrained proposal of all is that contained in the report by Mr. Peter Levene? That is the proposal that the Secretary of State favours and that will be carried out — consultation or otherwise. Under that scheme the dockyards will be franchised for a period of four, five, six or seven years. The system of franchising may be suitable for a fast food burger bar, but it is totally unsuitable for the refitting and repair of the frigates and submarines of the Royal Navy.
The Secretary of State has mentioned the number of reports that have been published in the past on the dockyards. Is he aware that Sir John Mallabar's report, which contrasts sharply in expertise and substance with the


flimsy six-page, amateurish report that he got from Mr. Peter Levene, came to the conclusion that the franchise option is
the way to get the worst of all worlds"?
Has the Secretary of State not taken any notice of the Mallabar report, the Speed report and other reports that have condemned the system he wants to operate?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that under the franchise arrangement there will have to be a cost-plus contract so that, because of the extra money that will have to be paid to private contractors for doing work which was not programmed and for doing operational repairs, it will cost more at the end of the day to operate the royal dockyards than it is costing at the moment?
These privatisation proposals will make things worse rather than better. They are not worth the upheaval that will be involved. That is why we shall oppose them by all legitimate means both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Miss Janet Fookes. Sorry, Mr. Heseltine.

Mr. Heseltine: I share your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a reply is hardly needed, but perhaps I may trespass on the time of the House for a moment.
The response of the right hon. Gentleman is understandable, particularly because he patently has not understood the nature of the proposals that I am putting forward. If I answer his third question first, the difficulty he is in will be clear to all because the answer is, no, the contract will not be a cost-plus contract. It will be as a result of competitive tendering for the bulk of the work that will be carried out by whoever manages the operation. The fact is that there are international precedents for large organisations involved in defence being managed under this system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In the United States of America. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us the details."] Oh, certainly. Let me give the House some details if it would help. In the United States of America, the naval industrial reserve ordnance plant in California is operated for the United States navy by General Dynamics, and about 8,000 people are employed. The Louisa army tank centre at Louisa, Ohio is operated for the United States army by General Dynamics, and about 3,000 people are involved. Therefore, I give the House just two examples. The proposal is based upon American experience. I see no reason why we should not gain from it here. I think that the House will realise that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the first idea of how this scheme works out. We are in the process of consulting to see which is the preferred solution. That is the purpose of today's initiative.
I come back to the right hon. Gentleman's first charge, that we were motivated by prejudice and dogma. I think that the House will want to judge the validity of such an assumption when it is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, upon being elected to this job, if ever he got it, to remove some 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in Rosyth as part of the process of getting rid of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. If that is not an example of prejudice and bigotry, I do not know what is.

Miss Janet Fookes: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's confirmation that there is a long-term future for the dockyard I can only view with dismay the short-term decision, which will involve the shedding of jobs. Will my right hon. Friend spell out

clearly, and not with general Government waffle, precisely what is involved and what steps will be taken to alleviate the situation for those who find their job prospects reduced?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, I know, will take a considerable interest in the position of her constituents and ensure that the Government do all that they properly can to help with the short-term problems that we shall have to face in that area. Today the unions are having their first meeting with the local management, because it is absolutely critical that the negotiations should proceed at local level between unions and management. The broad outline of the efficiency gains that the management believes to be possible will be put to the unions, and a consultative process will take place. Over the course of perhaps two years we see the opportunities for efficiency gains, which could reduce the present job levels in the Devonport dockyard by some 15 per cent., but one's experience of such a process — [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] That would be something in the order of about 2,000. From experience of the momentum that has to be achieved in gaining that efficiency, I hope that a relatively small proportion of that number v. ill be brought about as a result of compulsory redundancy. Our own experience would tell us that natural wastage and voluntary retirement will probably account for a significant majority of the efficiency gains that we have to achieve.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Secretary of State aware that after all the fine tributes to the dockyards during the Falklands campaign, the sense of betrayal as a result of the proposals will be very deep indeed? Will the right hon. Gentleman show to the House that he will take the consultative procedure seriously by at least agreeing to extend it to six months? Two to three months to give a city such as Plymouth the opportunity to put forward alternative proposals is totally inadequate, particularly because the agency proposal and the franchising, which seems to be the Government's most favoured option, is one that many people believe to be complete nonsense, and will not give job security. With regard to the 2,000 people in Devonport who will lose their jobs in the short term, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the short term? Is it 12 or 18 months? They must be told exactly what the period is. How are the losses to be spread over the two years? How is the redundancy to be spread over this two-year period? Will it happen immediately or steadily? Can the Secretary of State assure us that the consultation procedure will be lengthened?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I made it quite clear that we are talking about a two-year period. That is naturally the case if one is referring to natural wastage playing a significant part in the adjustments that have to be made. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants about lengthening the consultation period. He knows that I have had lengthy discussions with the unions in both Devonport and Rosyth. The original idea was leaked out of my Department about a year ago and has been the subject of widespread discussions ever since. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, so was the Levene report. Therefore, the idea that I am saying something today that has not been considered already is carrying language to an extremity. People's


attitudes have been very clearly prepared for my announcement. Of course the consultation period will be taken seriously. We have already begun the discussions, which I believe to be important, but there is no point in spinning it out and avoiding difficult decisions in the way that, in the context of the dockyards, we have done for far too long. We have genuinely paid a great tribute to the dockyards for the way in which they respond classically whenever a crisis faces this country, but in paying that tribute we did not mean to single them out from the very large numbers of people in the private sector who respond in exactly the same way. While one admires and places great reliance upon the dockyards, one cannot escape the harsh reality that absenteeism in the dockyards accounts, on average, for every person employed there, for four working weeks a year. That is about 40 per cent. above the national average.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We get 16 weeks here.

Mr. Keith Speed: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the first priority must be the standard of service to the Royal Navy, as Operation Corporate proved? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend agree that, as applied to a large industrial organisation, the Civil Service rules are the real enemy and that there are other ways of overcoming this problem, apart from franchising, as I believe my report showed? May I say, in parenthesis, that I am not sure that the present relationship between the Pentagon and General Dynamics is the most happy one.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this matter and has considered it very carefully. I have looked at my hon. Friend's report and have considered the matter again. We are considering the options on a wider basis. My hon. Friend has put his finger right on the heart of the matter. Within the constraints of the public sector great inhibitions are placed upon the individual and free management that we believe a proper enterprise demands. The trading fund goes only half-way towards the much more open and free environment of a proper commercial operation. We accept that a trading fund could result in certain benefits but it would achieve nothing like all the benefits that we should like to consider as options.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does not the right hon. Gentleman concede that he has today announced over 3,000 redundancies? Having given the numbers employed in the yards, and their turnover, will he say what value the Government place on these vital public assets? The Secretary of State referred to the experience in the United States, but does he not concede that Secretary of the Navy Lehman is presiding over a 700 ship fleet, whereas the Secretary of State and his other Ministers are presiding over the demise of the British surface fleet? Because of Trident he is concentrating on a programme that completely undermines our defence budget and defence potential. Will not the Secretary of State concede that this is the result of the misguided, stupid defence posture of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Member will want to go and tell them that in Scotland to justify the threat of the loss of 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in Rosyth if the Labour party ever come to power again in this country.

Mr. Douglas: We will go to Rosyth together, then.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will make his case and I shall make mine. The decision will have to be made with full consultation. I have been to Rosyth to discuss these matters. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is in Rosyth today and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is in Plymouth today to try to deal with the initial questions, which rightly concern those areas. We shall keep very closely in touch, but the people of Rosyth must clearly understand that I am offering to them a long-term, secure future. The Opposition are offering a devastating blow by the destruction of the major job opportunities in the area.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that probably the most important issue is to ensure that the Royal Navy remains the best-equipped in the world for its size? Is he satisfied that his proposals will achieve that? Does he agree that fairness to the taxpayer is also appropriate and that many of us are not convinced that the organisation of the dockyards in the past has provided that?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The document is supported by the Admiralty Board, which is as concerned as we are to achieve change because it realises that the defence budget ultimately bears the excess cost of managing the dockyards under the present regime and it wishes to achieve the best possible value for money. I believe that I can therefore give an assurance that the Royal Navy will be supportive, and has been supportive so far, of the Government's preferred solution in the open government document.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Can 8,000 loyal and dedicated workers at Rosyth be expected to entrust their future, the future of their dockyard and responsibility for the nation's defences, including our independent deterrent, to privatisation proposals which are dogmatic, unworkable and seek to subordinate the interests of national security to those of commercial gain? Are not these the disreputable plans of a discredited adviser who spent much of the year before this announcement hawking the royal dockyards around his friends in the private sector? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the United States dockyards are in the public sector and tell us how many jobs in the public service will be lost at Rosyth while he is providing for his private friends in the City?

Mr. Heseltine: I deeply deplore the scurrilous language used about Peter Levene, who has joined the Department as Chief of Defence Procurement. An extraordinary thing about this country is that although everyone knows that there is an urgent need to bring more industrial expertise into the management of public affairs the moment we do so the entire Labour party tries to diminish the endeavour. It is my responsibility to achieve value for money from the defence budget and I believe that Mr. Levene will play a major role in ensuring that. It is nothing short of hypocrisy for Labour Members to talk about job losses when they intend to cancel between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs at Rosyth if they ever return to Government.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the loss of 2,000 real jobs in the


Plymouth and East Cornwall area is extremely distressing? Will he confirm that under any arrangements to introduce private management the existing work force will retain the present conditions of service? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the procedures that will apply to allow local firms to acquire increased dockyard procurement in the future?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he will wish to take a deep and continuing interest in our efforts in that area. I think that I can help him on both questions. First, there is now wide experience of the successful transfer of employees from the public to the private sector. Where this has occurred, the Government have broadly ensured that the conditions of service have been maintained. It is our intention to ensure that that is the case if we proceed in the way that the preferred solution suggests. As for our interest in creating opportunities for further employment, I have already been in touch with the leaders of the two largest authorities in the area—Devon and Cornwall county councils—and asked them to join my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a concerted effort to use whatever powers we have at the Ministry of Defence to counter the initial job reductions that the efficiency gains demand.

Mr. Ron Brown: There is a smell of horse dung about this statement. The Secretary of State is the greatest supporter of cowboys and similar forms of enterprise and he wants to apply the idea to the dockyards. The Secretary of State is also a great supporter of the ballot idea. Would it not be better and more democratic to put the matter to the vote and ask those involved in the dockyards to register their view of the Secretary of State's proposals? That is the democratic process for which the Government argued during the miners' strike. Why not put it to the test and see what the result is?

Mr. Heseltine: The whole House will be fascinated to see a sudden conversion to genuine democracy in the ranks of the unions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any Government proposals will certainly be put to the vote. They will be put to the vote in this House, where democracy is of central importance.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he has no proposals to extend his suggestions beyond the royal dockyards to include the fleet maintenance base at Portsmouth, which has already made quite sufficient sacrifices in the cause of further economies?

Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. I realise the importance of the fleet maintenance bases. They are not included in my proposals.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Are not the 20,000 workers to whom the Secretary of State referred loyal workers, many of whom have dedicated their whole working lives to these industries? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of two or three months for consultations. Is not that too short a time? Several trade unions are involved and people's livelihoods are at stake. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, under the new regime, after privatisation, the protection rights and working conditions of the workers will be as good as those that they expect to enjoy today?

Mr. Heseltine: As I have said, whenever we have transferred employees from the public to the private sector we have done so on broadly comparable terms of employment. We would adopt the same approach in the context of any change in the royal dockyards. As I told the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I do not accept that there is a need to lengthen the consultation period. The matter has been the subject of intense debate in the dockyards for many months.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage in tackling a problem of inefficiency and outrage that has been connived at by Governments of all parties for many years, whereby a skilled work force has been held under by Civil Service constraints and union stubbornness? The work force at Rosyth will now have a great opportunity to exercise its skill and efficiency and to obtain other work which, unhappily, is at present going abroad?

Mr. Heseltine: I am the first to agree that large numbers of people in the dockyards have shown great loyalty and devotion in the defence endeavour, but the same spirit has been shown by equivalent people in the private sector. I cannot ignore the fact that there are significant inefficiencies and overmanning in the dockyards, and I cannot accept that that should be a permanent charge to the defence budget. I believe that if the dockyards can adopt a commercial approach there are job opportunities there that will be of significant benefit to the local economies. I and my ministerial colleagues are determined to make every effort to adopt a positive attitude, as a good employer should, to the benefit of the local communities.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Secretary of State have a downright cheek when he talks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about lack of patriotism? When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Army, he could not get his Army jacket off fast enough. He bought himself out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dockyards.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am coming to that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to the millions of people who will want to hear an unequivocal statement from him today that when the proposals are implemented and the selling off takes place, no foreign influence or money will be involved in it? Many people would like to know the answer to that.

Mr. Heseltine: But the hon. Member will realise that anyone who listened to what I said heard me make it clear that it will remain in British control.

Mr. Skinner: Ah, but that is not the same.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are many people in the Rosyth dockyard who have been deeply anxious for a long time about the risk to their jobs of policies that envisage the dismantling of our independent nuclear force. The welcome that has been given to my right hon. Friend's proposals will be qualified because they are worried about change, but people are always worried about change. Will my right hon. Friend assure those workers that the Ministry of Defence has experience of purchasing services from the private sector on a vast scale? That is true of aircraft, on which the Ministry spends huge sums of


money on sophisticated and secret equipment. The private sector does research on and tends to such equipment, so there is no risk to security and the service is of a high standard.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is at the centre of the matter. The defence budget draws great support from the public and the private sector. The loyalty, dedication and skills in both are of the highest. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the central issue is not whether the dockyards have a future, because I have assured them that they have one under this Government. Rosyth cannot say the same under a Labour Government because a significant part of its capability would then be cancelled and destroyed.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is pure humbug for the Labour party to claim to be concerned about the future of Rosyth when its policies would virtually wipe out Rosyth's activities? Does he further agree that to dismiss the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that consultations be extended to six months because there have been many unofficial unauthenticated leaks from his Ministry is not good enough and makes his proposal for a two-month consultation period a mere sham?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is repeating a question that I have already answered. I do not believe that it is a sham. The issues are well understood throughout all of the dockyard areas. The Rosyth dockyard people produced their alternative report before my proposals were published. Of course it does not agree with my proposals, but the idea that they need more time to think about the matter when they have already produced a report including their preferred solution is not realistic. The essence of the proposal that I have made today is that we should make up our minds and address something that has been neglected for far too long.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does "remain in British control" mean that as much as 49 per cent. of the equity could be owned by overseas interests?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many ways in which to secure control of a company. I would not tell the House that I have worked out the precise mechanism. I can only say that there is a quite clear commitment that the control of the company will remain firmly in British hands.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The Secretary of State has told us that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done—his last answer shows that. If the dockyard unions at Rosyth raise problems because of the deep studies that they have already made, will he be prepared, if necessary, to extend the consultation time beyond three months? How many jobs will be lost at Rosyth in addition to the 2,000 which will be lost at Plymouth? He has not yet made that clear today. Will he bear in mind that the American naval dockyard system operates under a trading account and that Secretary of State Weinberger has ceased any business with the General Dynamics Corporation because of excessive profiteering by that firm in other areas of defence procurement? We shall need to discuss this matter at greater length soon. Will he take the issue up with the Leader of the House to ensure an early and long debate?

Mr. Heseltine: The Opposition parties are never short of opportunities to raise matters in the House if they want to. My right hon. Friend the leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman said and if, through the usual channels, the Opposition want to pursue this matter, I am sure that they will do so, as is usual. I can add nothing to the clear view that the consultation period should end before the House rises for the summer recess. The issues are understood clearly, especially in the dockyards. They have faced us for a long time. We have now entered a period of formal consultation, but the dialogue has been going on for many months. As for the number of job losses at Rosyth, I mentioned 5 per cent. in my statement. That probably represents about 500. I would not expect there to be any compulsory redundancies, as we should be able to achieve that figure through natural wastage and voluntary retirement, and that is before any additional opportunities materialise.

Adjournment Debates (Speeches)

Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order concerns last night's Adjournment debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) and the rules relating to that precious half hour of Adjournment time at the end of our proceedings.
It is ironic that the debate was about the denial of freedom of speech to Raymond Honeyford, who is a Bradford teacher. Because he is my constituent, my hon. Friend he Member for Shipley was kind enough to say that he would allow me to speak briefly. I wrote to him before the debate. Because our proceedings were constantly interrupted with spurious points of order from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I was denied an opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituent and, more importantly, the House and my constituent were denied the opportunity of a ministerial reply to what my hon. Friend had said.
This is a most dangerous precedent. As the protector of Back Bench rights, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you to confirm two things: first, that the Adjournment is personal to the hon. Member who raises it and that other hon. Members speak at his discretion; secondly, that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Bradford, West denied my constituent a ministerial response and was a flagrant and disgraceful abuse of the procedures of the House.

Mr. Max Madden: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): On the same point?

Mr. Madden: Yes, Sir. I regret having to burden you with this point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially as you were not in the Chair when these unfortunate proceedings took place. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) initiated an Adjournment debate last night about a head teacher who is not his constituent but, as you have heard, a constituent of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). The hon. Member for Shipley made an extremely provocative and partisan speech concerning parents, who are my constituents, whose children go to a school which is in my constituency.
I wrote to the hon. Member for Shipley and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who was to reply asking that I might speak to explain why a majority of parents with children at the school have lost confidence in the headmaster as a result of a string of insults and abuse that he has levelled at them in a series of newspaper articles. The hon. Member for Shipley claims the right of freedom of speech for those who agree with him but is most anxious to deny that right to those of us who disagree with him.
I feel especially resentful as, last year, when I initiated an Adjournment debate about the closure of a hospital in my constituency, which closure had consequences for the Shipley constituency, I readily allowed the hon. Member for Shipley to speak at some length although he never wrote to me or contacted me to seek my permission. I am afraid that, mistakenly, I expected him to extend the same courtesy to me last night.
You will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this place relies heavily on good will. I am sure that many colleagues

on both sides of the House agree that that good will will evaporate very quickly if many hon. Members follow the disgraceful example set last night by the hon. Member for Shipley and initiate debates on controversial issues which concern institutions not in their constituency and people who are not their constituents, and then deny the hon. Member directly concerned an opportunity to reply to the disgraceful allegations which are made.
I very much regret raising this matter, and I also regret that last night I felt compelled to protest. However, this matter is important for the House of Commons. It is important that advice is given so that the unfortunate incidents which occurred last night are not seen again. The responsibility for what took place lies squarely and firmly with the hon. Member for Shipley.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call hon. Members on points of order, but we cannot have a debate on this matter.

Mr. Gary Waller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know how much Adjournment debates are valued by hon. Members who wish to draw attention to matters of concern, and also how difficult it often is to secure such a debate. The events which took place last night were very much as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) described so well. Essentially, it was a debate about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I explained that not only have I read the transcript, but I was present in the Chamber for the latter part of the proceedings. Therefore, there is no need for hon. Members to tell me what happened last night. They can take it for granted that I know something about it.

Mr. Waller: In response to what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has just said, I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) received no intimation from the hon. Gentleman that he intended to intervene, even had such an intervention been relevant, as this is surely a matter for my hon. Friend. I also knew only 10 minutes before the debate began that he wished to intervene. Although these points are not directly relevant, the point is surely that an Adjournment debate is personal to the hon. Member who initiates it, and, save for the Minister who is to reply, no other hon. Member has the right to intervene without that hon. Member's permission. That right should be maintained on behalf of the House.

Mr. Marcus Fox: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). May I make it clear that I received no letter from him? The children of some of my constituents attend that school, but the debate was not concerned with the school but with Mr. Honeyford and education in Bradford generally.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that in your experience an hon. Member never raises a matter on the Adjournment about a school or any other institution in the constituency of another hon. Member and then deliberately tries to organise the debate so as to deny the constituency Member even the opportunity of saying two or three words? In those


circumstances, it was not surprising that last night Opposition Members were totally appalled by such behaviour. If hon. Members wish to ensure the cooperation which is necessary if this House is to function, any hon. Member applying for an Adjournment debate on an institution in the constituency of another hon. Member should at least do that hon. Member the courtesy of allowing him a minute or two out of the short time available.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good run on this matter, and a lot of work still lies ahead of us. At this stage, it might be sensible if I said something. I have already told the House that as well as being present for the latter part of the proceedings before the House adjourned last night, I have carefully read the transcript. All the matters that have been raised today were dealt with by the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair yesterday evening. I see no reason whatever to dissent from any of his rulings. In the circumstances, he acted very properly, and it would be wrong if the House adopted the practice of appealing against matters which have already been dealt with and decisions which have already been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] All hon. Members who have raised this matter today have recognised that essentially we are discussing the courtesies and conventions of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise and observe those long-standing courtesies and conventions, which in this case appear not to have been fully observed. These are not matters for the Chair. It is for hon. Members to recognise the courtesies and conventions of the House, and I hope that will be done in future. Bearing in mind the lessons that we have learned from these discussions, we should now proceed to the next business.

Domestic Content of Motor Vehicles

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish domestic content requirements for motor vehicles sold or distributed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The objective behind the Bill is to strengthen employment in the motor and component industries. A strong motor industry is absolutely necessary for any industrial nation. The motor industry is about not just the basic industries, important though they are, or about the steel, glass and rubber industries, but the high technology industries such as the electronics industry. It is about the fitting of mini-computers into motor vehicles, new materials, ceramics which can be used in motor engines and plastics which can be used in bodywork. Without a strong motor industry, we cannot enter the realms of high technology, and that is vital.
In the early 1970s, the motor industry, either directly or indirectly, employed 1·2 million people. That figure has now declined to 450,000 —a shocking condemnation. In the 1970s, the motor industry accounted for 11 per cent. of industrial output and 17 per cent. of the export trade. Today it accounts for only 4 per cent. of industrial output and 7 per cent. of exports. Under this Government, we now import 1 million vehicles and export only 220,000. Nationally, the balance of payments for the sale of motor vehicles went into deficit in 1982, and it now stands at £2·3 billion. We ought to be trying to retrieve the situation.
Motor imports now total 57 per cent. The multinational manufacturers—Ford, General Motors and Vauxhall—are now responsible for 42 per cent. of all motor imports. Many people now driving cars believe that they have bought a British vehicle, but in reality 50 per cent. have been imported and contain hardly any British components. Indeed, 25 per cent. of such imports come from Spain. To get a British vehicle into Spain, one must jump a 37 per cent. tariff barrier; yet, when Spain exports to the Common Market, the tariff barrier is only 4 per cent.
We cannot continue in that fashion. Harold Musgrave, the chairman of Austin Rover, has said that anything less than 80 per cent. British content means that we shall not be supplying high technology components. He said that was the minimum required if we were to preserve the British motor industry. This industry is in decline. While that decline has not yet become terminal, it will do so unless something is done.
We should find out how we can overcome that problem. We could do what we did for Nissan. We appear to allow Nissan to come to this country not to benefit us, but to jump over the barriers that have been erected in Europe. I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is taking a tought line in Japan, but I doubt it. Many people, including Ministers, said that there would be between 60 and 80 per cent. of local content in Nissan vehicles. That includes everything — the on-costs, the sales costs and cleaners' costs. However, when they talk about local content, they mean European, not British, content. That has not been sufficiently spelt out. We should not accept such deals.
My Bill seeks not to interfere with choice or imports, but to ensure British content and employment in the United Kingdom for our people. The measure is modest. If the imported vehicles sold total not more than 20,000 there


should be a minimum of 50 per cent. British content; between 20,000 and 50,000, there should be 65 per cent. minimum content; between 50,000 and 100,000, there should be 75 per cent. British content; between 100,000 and 250,000, there should be 90 per cent. British content; and for more than 250,000, as it is for major manufacturers, there should be 95 per cent. British content.
If people argue that even 90 per cent. British content does not include high technology, the Bill provides for the inclusion of one or more of six high technology components, and, in some cases, of all six. They are engine fully dressed, body panels, wiring harness, braking system, drive shaft and steering suspension. A minimum British content of 50 per cent. should include at least two of those six components; of 65 per cent., three; of 75 per cent., four; of 90 per cent., five; and of 95 per cent., all six. In that way we can ensure that we stay in high technology and bring employment back to the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept this modest measure.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that not one of the eight Ministers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene when we discuss a motion under the ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the question of the conduct of grasping Landlords when Viscount Tonypandy was Speaker, and he allowed an interjection and a speech to be made by the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have neither recollection of nor responsibility for that. I am ruling now. Mr. Hoyle.

Mr. Hoyle: In the early 1970s I would have been able to say that I expected support from all quarters of the House.

Mr. Gould: No Ministers are present.

Mr. Hoyle: No Ministers are present. That shows the amount of notice that they take.

Mr. Gould: Although there are eight of them.

Mr. Hoyle: Not one of the eight Ministers is present. That shows what they think about the motor and components industry.
In the 1970s there would hardly have been a constituency without a motor plant or companies that manufactured components for the motor industry. Today components are still manufactured in many constituencies. I hope that Conservative Members who represent such constituencies and want to retain their seats will therefore support my Bill. Despite the Ministers' absence, I hope that the Government will adopt my Bill so that we can preserve the British motor industry, bring back employment, and continue in the realms of high technology.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. George Park, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. David Winnick, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. Derek Fatchett.

DOMESTIC CONTENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. Doug Hoyle: accordingly presented a Bill to establish domestic content requirements for motor vehicles sold or distributed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Orders of the Day — Interception of Communications Bill

As amended for the Committee considered

New Clause 1

APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE

A Select Committee of the House of Commons shall be established to oversee the work of any person responsible for, or making use of, the interception of communications—[Mr. Clive Soley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a particularly important new clause. We have touched on this issue in previous debates on the Bill but have received far from adequate answers about why the Government will not move in this direction. We want to know why hon. Members who vote against the new clause and especially why the Government do not have sufficient confidence in the House and the parliamentary system to allow the House to oversee the work of the security services.
The way in which the Bill has been introduced and justified by the Government suggests that they neither give sufficient importance to the views of the elected representatives of the people nor trust them sufficiently to allow them to oversee the work of the security forces. We have heard many arguments why the Government do not want to follow that road.
There are two primary reasons why the Labour party wants a Select Committee to oversee the work of the security forces. The first is the self-evident reason that the House represents the will of the people. Hon. Members are elected to protect the democratic rights of those people, and that is what the electorate expect of us. Parliament must give a high priority to protecting the democratic and civil rights of the people. One way of doing that is for a Select Committee to oversee the work of the security forces. That is an infinitely better approach than that which the Government have designed in the Bill.
Secondly, we have always believed that some interception of communications is necessary and that the security services are necessary. If those services are to be effective, how do we define their guidelines and draw up the law in such a way as to enable them to operate effectively and at the same time to ensure that their operations do not undermine the basic democratic and civil rights of our people? That is the crucial question.
We are faced with the dilemma under the Bill and the Government's past policy of trying to tie the law up either too tightly or loosely. If it is tied up too tightly, the security forces must operate outside the law.
When I first spoke on this subject in the House, I gave the example of the West German police capturing the Baader-Meinhof group by, on their admission, going outside the law. They were forced to do so because German law was drawn so tightly that it did not allow them to bug a table in a cafe that would have enabled them to know where the bombing was to take place. They chose

to break the law and, in doing so, they captured the group. It was an especially important event. However, the Labour party believes that it is completely wrong and extremely dangerous to put the security services in that position.
The other side of the argument is that if we tie the law too loosely, which is what the House has tended to do, we have the worst of all worlds, because we say to the security services, "You can do what you like." That is a great danger. Although the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will say, "We have oversight of such operations," the evidence of the recent past, including the gross embarrassment caused to the Prime Minister by security leaks in recent years is that there has been insufficient parliamentary supervision of the security services. That is not surprising, because the area is far too complex for extremely busy people to keep an eye on everything that is happening in the way they should.
Therefore, for the effective oversight of the work of the security forces, we need a Committee of the House, and I suggest a Select Committee. When appropriate, it can work in public, and when inappropriate, it can sit in private, in deciding whether the law must be changed in any way and in making recommendations to the House. That would get round the problems faced by the West Germans.
The creation of such a Select Committee would also help to ensure that the democratic and civil rights of the British people are fully protected. The public rightly look to Parliament to do that.

Mr. William Cash: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the amendment would be included in the Bill? He will know that all other Select Committees have been set up under Standing Orders. Why has he chosen this route? Some of the other amendments have some unpleasant characteristics which I shall address in a moment.

Mr. Soley: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's description of those unpleasant characteristics. All that I can say is that this is not an amendment, but a new clause. It will require the Government to act, and they would then go through the normal process of setting up a Committee. We have chosen to do it in this way because no other way would be in order. It is a perfectly reasonable method. Alternatively, we could amend the procedures relating to Select Committees, but that would be inappropriate in the context of the Bill

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Soley: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, I suggest that he thinks carefully about the order of events. If the House passed a new clause calling for the creation of a Select Committee, the implications for the Government would be clear. They would be expected to act in accordance with the new clause.

Mr. Cash: Of course I realise that this is a new clause, not an amendment, and I apologise for the error. However, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could name any other Act that has included such a provision.

Mr. Soley: It is incredible to suggest that we must always have a precedent to justify introducing a measure that we believe is eminently sensible and appropriate. The new clause is not out of order. If it were, it would have been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker and would not have been chosen for debate. It has been chosen, and I suspect


that the hon. Gentleman is trying to dress up a minor nitpicking point when dealing with an extremely important new clause.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will my hon. Friend reflect that if the House were to adopt the attitude to Standing Orders which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) suggests, it would always have to go on precedent, and we would be without the Bill of Rights, universal suffrage and a great deal of other important legislation that is now on the statute book?

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right. At the end of the day, I have complete trust in you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in Mr. Speaker — I understand that he is unwell today — in deciding whether such a new clause should be called. Since it has been called, that is the end of the matter, unless one wishes to indulge in nitpicking, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has. I would much rather he addressed his thoughts to the central arguments that I have put, and I shall certainly expect the Minister to do the same. These matters are far too important to everyone in the country to be treated with the disdain, if not contempt, displayed by the hon. Member for Stafford.
In previous debates, when the idea of a Select Committee was mooted, Conservative Members fell back on the argument that there would be a danger of leaks. I said then that that was the weakest of all arguments. The present system leaks like a sieve. There is no evidence that it is leakproof; indeed, all the evidence, if we consider those who have betrayed the country, is that leaks do not come from within the House but from outside. In some circumstances, the leaks could come from the very people who were appointed. As we know, a great problem for the British security services has been leaks from within. The argument about leaks is a non-starter.
That argument is also a non-starter because it is another criticism of the House. Many other countries, including those whose system is based closely on Britain's—I cite Canada as a classic example — use the sort of system that I am describing. Are we really saying that the House of Commons — the originator of parliamentary democracy—is incapable of exercising such responsibility and judgment, but that the parliaments of western Europe and those of the English-speaking world are? We should be devaluing the House if we said that. Indeed, several Government actions suggest to me that, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, the Government are devaluing and understating the role of the House.
When I previously mentioned the possibility of a Select Committee, the Home Secretary said that we had not yet given sufficient thought to the role of commissioner or the tribunal. The reason why we have not done so is that we believe that their role would be far too weak compared with what it should be. We have tried to decide whether we want a judicial system or a system based on the parliamentary model, and the Government have come up with a quasi-judicial system. If they had chosen a judicial system—the Bill calls for the appointment of people with suitable legal qualifications—they would be saying that the interception of communications should be decided by the courts. Therefore, the logic is that warrants should be issued only by the courts, which is precisely what happens in many other countries.
I should make it clear that I have reservations about that, but there is much logic in going for a fully judicial

system in which a judge grants a warrant. There is also logic in the sort of parliamentary system for which I am calling. There is no logic in a half-baked, in-between scheme that uses neither Parliament nor the courts properly. We shall have the worst of all worlds with this neither-fish-nor-fowl approach from the Government.
That approach tends to make the House irrelevant. The trend in recent years, not only under this Government, has been to undermine the role of the House, and the House certainly does not have the power and authority that it used to have. We have to ask ourselves why that is so.
Frequently, we are seen outside the House as irrelevant. In politics one can be right or wrong, good or bad, Left or Right, but one cannot afford to be irrelevant, because irrelevant institutions fade away. The more we disperse power, whether it is to the European Commission or to committees such as the the one set up by the Bill, the more we reduce the power available to this place. It is all very well to do that knowingly, understanding the consequences, but when we do it in this way we have not even begun to think about the consequences.
One of the most important sectors of government—the sector where the Government allow themselves to intercept communications and interfere with the privacy of citizens of a democracy —is to be a sector on which Parliament will have very little say. The Government may say that the tribunal is required to make a report, that that report will be given annually to the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister is required to lay it before the House.
Clause 8 says:
(7) The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every annual report made by the Commissioner under subsection (6) above together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (8) below.
(8) If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, that the publication of any matter in an annual report would be prejudicial to national security, to the prevention or detection of serious crime or to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament.
As we have said before, and as we shall say again today, that goes far too wide. It means that the annual report that will be laid before the House could be—not necessarily would be—extremely thin and could give little opportunity for informed debate.
However, let us assume that a full report, with virtually nothing excluded, is laid before the House. It is then available for us to read, and we may be able to arrange a debate. Let us assume that we persuade the Government of the day to allow one day of prime Government time for that debate. That is one day's debate on an extremely serious matter, compared to what could be done by a Select Committee over many weeks of sitting, bringing evidence before it, questioning people involved, looking at the matter in depth. Which system protects the democratic rights best? The answer is clear. It is the Select Committee system, which can report to the House, after which a full debate can take place. In other words, we would have the best rather than the worst of both worlds.
The quasi-judicial system has all the disadvantages of being complex, confusing and ultimately answering to people who are infinitely too busy to give to it the attention that they would want. Having seen the Prime Minister waltzing around the world recently, I was tempted to get Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber to write music for


the trip along the lines of "Evita". There is a song called "Rainbow High" in that play that is appropriate to the Prime Minister's recent jaunt.
The point is that a Prime Minister is infinitely too busy, whether or not he or she is trying to pack in a journey such as the one the Prime Minister undertook, to give this matter the detailed attention it deserves. In particular, a Prime Minister would be too busy to give detailed attention to the protection of the democratic rights of the people ensuring that when we pass legislation that allows the interception of communications, it is done effectively enough to prevent some of the more horrendous crimes such as terrorist bombings, killings and some drug abuses.

Mr. Steve Norris: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not unsympathetic to his line of reasoning. Does he agree that the important sector to which the new clause is addressed is national security and precisely those parts of the security service that would be excluded from the report required under clause 8? How does he propose that the Select Committee on this matter would be in any better position to get round what I see as the insuperable self-imposing and self-limiting barrier—another Chinese wall — whereby the sectors excluded from the report are the ones about which the House would wish to know?

Mr. Soley: The answer to the hon. Gentleman lies in the example of the Defence Committee. It has to deal with extremely sensitive information at times, and does so very well. It calls before it evidence from the experts with detailed knowledge of highly secret information. It cross-examines those experts and goes into details. It pays visits to some of the establishments and sees some of the equipment. It does not run into any problems. The security services present more difficulties because of the closed nature of their operations, but it does not necessarily follow that we could not have a Select Committee on them. It may be more difficult but it would not be fundamentally different.
We have the problem of being excessively secret in this country. The other nations, particularly the democracies, are more open. At an official level we still pretend that we do not have MI5, MI6 and so on. However, we have these operations, and it is time that we said so openly and publicly. Everybody knows about them and thinks that they are official and public, but there is still this nonsensical pretence. Unless we set up some structure for controlling them, we shall leave the powers solely with two members of the Executive who, even with the best will in the world, cannot exercise that control effectively. That is the key argument, and that is why the new clause is so important. It is of central importance to the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): The subject of a Select Committee has been discussed before. There is one central point to be made. The new clause says:
A Select Committee shall be established to oversee the work of any person responsible for, or making use of, the interception of communications.
That takes a Select Committee smack into the centre of the operations of the police, security and intelligence services.
While I believe that matters of general policing policy should be matters not only for the House but for the police

authorities, I am opposed to any political interference in the operation of the police service. I think that I shall carry at least one Front Bench Labour Member with me on that.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake that has been made by a number of hon. Members. To my mind, democracy is about setting policies and holding people accountable for how those policies are carried out. Those are the two key things, that is how we have practised democracy, and that is the normal process. We do that in all other sectors, and what we are suggesting here is no different.

Mr. Griffiths: The House will have to take account not of what the hon. Gentleman says is in his mind but of what is on the amendment paper. The new clause says:
A Select Committee...shall oversee the work"—
not the policy or the accountability—
of any person responsible for, or making use of, the interception of communications.
I can think of no clearer use of the English language. That means that a Select Committee will get involved in the work, the operations, the day-to-day conduct of the police, the security and, as I understand it, the intelligence-gathering services. I object to that, and I am sure that the House as a whole, on reflection, will object to it on the highest grounds of principle.
It is right that the House should set policies and have an oversight of the way in which policies are carried out, and it ought to expect Ministers to be responsible for the policies for which they are accountable to the House. But it is an entirely different matter for a Select Committee of the House to get involved in the work, the operations and the day-to-day performance of the police or security services.
Over the past year, we have seen the attempts of political elements in police authorities to intrude into police operations. I should probably cause unnecessary contention in the House if I went into any of the details where this problem arose during the miners' strike. However, there have unquestionably been attempts by political people in police authorities to tell the police that they should perform their duties in a certain way and that they should give immunity to some people and not to others, because they have taken a political view of police work and operations. That cannot be right.
If a Left-wing police authority intruded into police operations on behalf of that ideology, a Right-wing police authority in some other county could intrude in a different fashion. That is quite wrong. There is no room for party politics in policing, and there is no room for the police in politics. I make that clear. Therefore, I should be opposed to a Select Committee of the House getting involved in operations.
Another illustration could be taken from the recent operations of the GLC, where unquestionably political attempts have been made to interfere with the way in which the metropolitan police carry out their duties. I repeat that it is right that politicians should wish to have a general oversight of policing policies and that the views of politicians should be taken into account by the police at all times. But once we allow politics to intrude in the operation of the law, we start to compromise justice itself and to go down the road towards the east European state.
What distinguishes our police service and administration of justice from those in many other countries, notably in eastern Europe, is that in those countries the concept of


justice and of policing arises from the notion of political control. They have political police and political justice. They take the view that all crimes are political or state crimes. The great distinction in our country is that the police are non-political and non-partisan and are removed from any suggestion that there shall be interference by politicians, of whatever complexion, in their day-to-day operations.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) advanced some persuasive arguments, but I think that he is wrong in principle. The language of his new clause is such that it would insert politics into policing and into the security services. He said very fairly—and it is to the honour of the Labour Front Bench—that, although a number of his colleagues in the country have suggested that this Bill for the first time introduces telephone tapping, that it is an obnoxious practice and that it should never be allowed, he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have never disguised the fact that from time to time it is necessary in the interests of the security of the state. But the Opposition are properly concerned about accountability. That is the issue here, and I understand that.
However, the new clause would mean that a Select Committee of the House would get involved in the actual work of telephone tapping, and that is an extraordinary proposition.

Mr. Norris: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would say why any oversight of interception by a Select Committee is political, but oversight by a Prime Minister or Home Secretary somehow is not?

Mr. Griffiths: I can give my hon. Friend a precise answer. It is a constitutional point. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are responsible to the House, but they are Ministers of the Crown and they carry out that duty in that sense. The Prime Minister owes his or her position to the process of election and to the confidence of the House, and, of course, that is a political matter. But in exercising the duties of a Prime Minister under the law and the constitution, the Prime Minister is the Queen's first Minister. That is his or her constitutional responsibility. The reality is that there can never be a non-political Prime Minister or Home Secretary.
The answer to my hon. Friend is that a Select Committee of the House is not appointed by the monarch; it is a product of the House. Her Majesty's Ministers operate as the servants of the monarch, though responsible to the House, rather than, as a Select Committee operates, as part of the procedures of Parliament. That is an important distinction.

Mr. Eric. S. Haffer: Now answer the question.

Mr. Griffiths: I have answered it. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) may not think it a satisfactory answer, and it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) does not think that it is satisfactory, but I see a real distinction here. It is the ministerial conduct of the executive function of government that we are discussing, not the parliamentary oversight, which is a different matter.
I cannot believe it to be right that a Select Committee of the House should be in a position to demand, as the clause implies, that a police officer or member of the

security service should be answerable in detail to a Select Committee for his work. Does it mean that the Select Committee would send for him?

Mr. Soley: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: That is very interesting. The Select Committee would be able to determine within the rank structure of the security services—whether MI5, MI6 or the special branch—that a superintendent, an inspector or a sergeant should be brought before it and cross-examined. Is that what the hon. Member for Hammersmith proposes?

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is getting himself into an incredible mess. The Select Committees do that already. They ask people to appear before them to give evidence. Not to attend is a very serious matter.

Mr. Griffiths: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has served on a Select Committee, as I have. It has been the misfortune of many of us to do so. I have served on one for about 18 months, and it has been my frequent experience, occasionally to my intense exasperation, that when a Committee has sought to subpoena or to demand the presence of a civil servant, the Minister in question has refused. Quite often the Minister has been right to refuse. We in the House operate on the basis that Ministers are accountable to the House but that civil servants are accountable to Ministers. The hon. Member for Hammersmith is not correct when he says that at present Select Committees subpoena or command the presence of civil servants. They may do that only if the Minister in question is agreeable to it.

Mr. Soley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Griffiths: The House will have to make up its own mind about it.
I am glad to have elicited from the hon. Member for Hammersmith exactly what the Opposition's policy is. He regards it as entirely proper that a Select Committee should be able to reach right into the special branch, the police, the security services, intelligence gathering and anti-terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, for example, demand their presence, and cross-examine them here with all the terrifying risks that that involves and all the great risks to individual practitioners — operational police officers and security officers — being exposed to questions which I do not believe they can possibly answer, in the public interest. It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should have gone so far in stating his intentions.
5 pm
This measure would result in an improper intrusion of the legislative function of the House into the Government's executive responsibilities. Worse, it would cause political matters to intrude into the operations of the police and the security services. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith had put on the amendment paper what he meant but did not say—that a Select Committee should have a general duty to oversee policies and Ministers should be required to report to it—hon. Members would have had more sympathy with his ideas. I would not have supported him even in that statement, but Conservative Members would have shown more sympathy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East takes that view. I should be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend goes as far as the Opposition have gone in


demanding that a Select Committee should have the ability to cross-examine the police and members of the security services about their operations.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain my feelings precisely. Presumably any Select Committee is required to take account of policy, to compare policy with practice, and, when elucidating the difference between policy and practice, to cross-examine any witness that it chooses. Does not that principle apply straightforwardly?

Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that it does not. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend can cite chapter and verse of occasions when Select Committees have been able to call before them civil servants, police officers, or anyone else, against the wishes of the Minister. I do not think that they have been able to do so. What matters is the issue of ministerial accountability, not the ability of Ministers to bullyrag, for political reasons, those who have difficult operational tasks.
I can see that I have hardly carried the whole of the Opposition with me, but I believe that this new clause is misconceived. It would be contrary to the proper practices of the House. This measure would nibble away at the proper constitutional relationship between the Executive and the legislature. Above all, the new clause would inject politics into the police and security services, and politics should not be there.

Mr. Heffer: I am speaking from this position because I understand that because a new microphone has been installed it will be easier for the House and the country to hear me. The fact that the leader of the Liberal party is not in his place allows me to speak from here.
I support new clause 1. It is right that we should ask for a Select Committee
to oversee the work of any person responsible for, of making use of, the interception of communications.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who did not declare his interest — he is spokesman for the Police Federation—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should make it clear that the Police Federation has formed no view on the Bill. I have had no communication with the federation. I speak for myself alone.

Mr. Haffer: Fair enough. I want to declare an interest. I believe that, as a Left-wing Socialist, my telephone has probably been bugged for the past 14 years. I do not know what good that has done those who have listened to my telephone conversations. They must have listened to some interesting conversations between my wife and her mother-in-law, her brother and many other people. As I have never said anything privately that I would not say publicly, there is nothing for me to be terribly worried about. I know that this bugging occurs, because many years ago when I was a shop steward in the shipyards in Liverpool, I discovered that the local police had a dossier on me. Good luck to them.
We need a Select Committee to oversee the work of these people. What else is it but work? These people are intervening in-the conversations of ordinary citizens. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds believes that the law is above society, he does not live in the real world. Law

is determined by the House of Commons and the House of Lords collectively at a given moment. If the given moment means that we have a Conservative, Right-wing, reactionary Government of the type that we have now, laws of that kind will be determined by that Government. If we have a Labour Government, I hope that they will repeal some of those laws. It is ridiculous to suggest that the law is above society.
The other day I delivered a lecture in Trowbridge, entitled the Thomas Helliker Lecture. It was about a 19-year-old man who was hanged in 1803 because he dared to be a member of a trade union. He was accused of burning down a woollen mill which was owned by a certain gentleman. He was not involved, but he knew who had burnt the mill. He refused to give the names of those people, and consequently was hanged. Anyone who tells me that the law is above society, that the law does not reflect the ideas of the people who run society and control the Government and the system is not living in the world in which I live. Those of us in the Labour movement who know about these matters understand that the law is used constantly against those who oppose the existing system of society and want to change it by normal democratic means.
I have been sent a copy of the Leveller Supplement—it is a magazine of the Left — headed "MI5 funded, Monochrome". It is a monthly newspaper, and I received issue No. 4 for 1 April 1985. I had never received that paper before. I do not know who runs it or anything about it, but it contains much interesting information that should be examined.
One article states:
a senior Intelligence Officer talks to our Man from Monochrome, Paul Demetriou.
The article continues:
"John Wilson (not his real name) is a Senior Intelligence Officer at F Branch. F Branch specialises in 'counter subversion'. Its various sections deal with the Communist Party, Trades Unions, Irish Terrorism, etc…Wilson has worked for MI5 for 20 years and for F Branch for the past ten. In an exclusive interview for Monochrome, he discusses his work for the first time.
This is what convinces me that my telephone has been bugged for some years. Speaking of Left-wing targets, Wilson stated:
Most individuals from the leadership of Far Left organisations are considered to be a threat to the State. Some people have files on them dating back over thirty years.
The article states:
Like whom? 'Ted Grant … partly because of his activities in the Labour Party (Ted Grant sits on the Editorial Board of Militant)".
It goes on to say:
During the early 1980s, prominent Labour left-wingers had their home phones tapped. Once this had bizarre results. 'A broken transcript of a conversation between Chris Mullin (a member of Tony Benn' s 'kitchen cabinet' and Tribune journalist) and a friend was passed to the office. There had been faults on the telephone, so the playback was interrupted, but Mullin had clearly been discussing defence policy options. We all imagined that it was part of a new Bennite defence initiative. It was hurriedly analysed by colleagues working on the peace movement. It was only later discovered that Mullin had been talking about various scenarios for his novel (A Very British Coup).
That is all in the document. I do not know whether it is true, but someone must answer. It was issued on 1 April. Has any action been taken against that paper since 1 April?


Have the Government said that it is all lies? Who is this man John Wilson? What is the material? There is a great deal of other material. Wilson says:
F Branch sometimes finds it necessary to infiltrate an organisation using spies and paid informers. A sub-branch FX, is the specialist Branch. Wilson estimates there are 'hundreds' of these, co-ordinated by various MI5 desk officers. Sometimes they are planted, but usually they are recruited from within. He claims MI5 has infiltrated all the major trade unions; the Labour Party; the Communist Party; the NCCL; Greenpeace; groups on the revolutionary left and right. CND again is a major target.
Do we not need a Select Committee to oversee the work of those individuals? Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds does not understand that we did not always have a House of Commons with genuine rights. We had a House of Commons which was allowed by the whim or agreement of the monarchy. It had to state that it had its own rights, which it would use in its own way, and the monarch was put in his place.
In passing, I want to make this clear. During the past few days some of the papers have been acting disgracefully with regard to Princess Michael. I do not know her. I shall never meet her. I do not want to meet her. I do not know what her politics are. I am sure that they are not mine. I am sure that they are completely opposed to everything in which I believe, but no one can be responsible for his or her parents. I make that clear. My father, luckily, was not a murderer. He happened to be a regimental sergeant major.

Mr. John Golding: That is worse.

Mr. Heffer: It may be worse in the eyes of some people. I did not become a regimental sergeant major. I had no intention of doing so. Some of the papers, including that so-called Labour paper, the Daily Mirror, have been acting disgracefully. If there has been a cover up, concentrate on the cover up, not on the princess, because she is of no importance. That does not advance our political arguments one iota. What is far more important—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will return to the new clause.

Mr. Heffer: I wanted to say that, because I believe that it is important that someone on the Left of the Labour party should make it clear that we are not against people because their parents might have been Nazis or, in this country, Mosleyites or anything else. We are opposed to what those people stood for, not where their children stand. We must make that clear. I am sorry for anyone who joins the Tory party, but I cannot help it. The children of some Labour people have joined the Tory party, and that is regrettable. We cannot blame people, even if their parents were in the SS.
The future of our country is far more important. We have democracy because the people decided that we should have a democratic Parliament, elected by the people. It took a long time. From the 1642 revolution we had a genuine democratic Parliament in which every man had the vote. It was not until after 1918 that women had the vote. It took a long time to fight for those democratic rights.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made clear, the House represents the will of the country. If it is the will of the country, we should have a Select Committee to oversee what is done in the name of

the Government, elected by the people, in relation to the citizens of this country, irrespective of their political views. I do not mind whether people are on the Right or the Left. It is vital that a Select Committee should oversee any interceptions by people acting for the security forces.
We all know that the security forces have a job to do. They must investigate people who want to carry out terrorist activities. No one denies that. They must investigate drug pushers. No one denies that. I welcome every effort that is made towards stopping that filthy business. No one denies that all that is important, but, for God's sake, I heard the Prime Minister talking about the enemy within. Was she talking about trade unionists? Are we the enemy within because we have a different point of view? No one should have his words intercepted because he might have a political point of view different from that of the Administration.
5.15 pm
I have said clearly in the House and elsewhere that I do not agree with what happens in eastern European countries. I do not agree with the police system that operates in those countries. One of the reasons why we must have a Select Committee overseeing our security forces is that I do not want to see us move into the type of society where we have a security body separate from the Administration — that can happen — and, in the end, running the Administration. That is why we must have genuine control of interceptions. I accept the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, and I give my unqualified support zo the new clause.

Mr. Norris: The discussions on the Bill take place against the background of public disquiet. The extent to which that public disquiet is informed should be a matter for debate. One cannot argue but that such disquiet exists. The focus of that disquiet is in no small measure the growing assumption—the dawning of the realisation—that if the country has a choice of whether the security services operate within or without the ambit of Parliament, we have for too long allowed the principle to develop, possibly by default, that the security services largely operate outside parliamentary accountability. That accountability is vested formally in members of the Government — the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
The new clause seeks to alter that relationship and accountability in two ways. First, it seeks straightforwardly and unequivocally to bring all the security services' operations inside the ambit of Parliament. Secondly, it predicates the view that a Select Committee is more appropriate, ultimately, than a Minister to be accountable for the affairs of the security services.
On that latter point, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has suggested that a Minister of the Crown is somehow apolitical, while a Select Committee is by definition political because it is selected by this House. I hope that I do not misrepresent my hon. Friend's observations. My experience as a member of a Select Committee, which believes that it is trying to do an important job, is that we work best when we work on a completely apolitical or non-political basis. Indeed, the majority of our deliberations are carried out entirely in that vein.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: For the avoidance of any doubt between my hon. Friend and myself, let me say that what


I argued was that when a Minister of the Crown is acting in his Executive function as a Minister of the Crown he is not, or ought not to be, acting as a party politician. He is carrying out the Queen's government. Of course, he is at the same time a politician. Many Ministers have to act in an appellate fashion. Every Secretary of State determines matters in an appellate capacity. In that sense, he has no politics.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I take his observations seriously. I refer him to a point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in moving the motion. He said that there were options available to us to control the operation of the security services. One of these is the Executive overview option, which is the one that we currently have. The other is some sort of quasi-judicial option, into which we are being led. I shall argue later and on Third Reading that that is better than nothing, but there is also the judicial option. My view—my hon. Friend may not share it—is that the forum of the Select Committee and the way in which it works is a more appropriate way of monitoring the operations of the security services than the system of Executive accountability.
I have always accepted it as the prerequisite of any Select Committee that it works on the basis, as I said earlier, of looking at Government policy and not only making recommedations as to how that policy should be changed, but, more importantly, comparing the policy theory with the practice—the actuality.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, (Mr. Heffer) quoted a number of observations. He will forgive me for saying that there are other literary organs from which similar observations have emanated in the past few months. In considering them we have to bear in mind the assurances, given to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that all interceptions have been carried out in accordance with very closely defined criteria which he has spelt out. Surely the essence of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I share, is that there is a considerable gulf between the very precise circumstances in which interception is to be authorised, and spelt out by the Home Secretary in his assurances—the House would naturally accept that he gave them in good faith—and the stories which constantly arise and which have on occasion a disquieting degree of accuracy about them.
In order to allay public disquiet, there would be considerable merit in having some much more publicly accountable forum in which the activities of the security services generally could be scrutinised. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will recall that I pursued a similar line of argument in Committee. I hope that I am not offending against the conventions of the House by raising a matter which has already been discussed. On that occasion I said that there were qualifications which of necessity would have to be made to the structure of the Select Committee before it would be a suitable body to handle security matters.
One of the most important principles in intelligence operations—anyone who has observed the operations of the security services in the second world war will know it —is the "need to know" principle. That should not be lightly discarded. It follows from that that there is a great

danger in allowing information to be disseminated to large numbers of people who do not have a direct interest in or responsibility for that information. The inadvertent disclosure of it could be potentially embarrassing to the security services, and no one on either side of the House would want that to happen.
Therefore, it follows that the Select Committee should be composed of a smaller number of right hon. Members —I use that term advisedly—than is usually the case. Select Committees usually vary in size between nine and 13 members. I suggest that in this instance there should be not more than five right hon. Members. On the "need to know" principle, the smaller the number of right hon. Members involved in the Select Committee, the better.
The members of the Select Committee would need to be people of considerable experience of this House and of government generally. The issues with which they would be dealing would not only be important in themselves and need to be interpreted responsibly and in a proper fashion, but would need to be interpreted by right hon. Members of this House with the necessary experience to know what to look for, who had been through the mill of a Department of State, and had perhaps held the highest offices in the land. They should be people who understand from the inside how the system works.

Mr. David Winnick: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points. Even the sort of Select Committee for which he is arguing would be an improvement on the present position, in which there is no parliamentary scrutiny whatever, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises sufficiently that Select Committees are always reluctant, even if they are composed of supporters of the Government of the day, to be regarded as a mouthpiece of the Administration.
The hon. Gentleman has made a number of arguments, some valid, and others not. Is there not a danger that such a small Select Committee, composed of people with a long experience, all of them Privy Councillors, and perhaps some of them ex-Ministers, would in time come to be regarded as a body likely to give approval to the Government or the Establishment of the day? Therefore, to some extent it would defeat the very purpose of having the kind of parliamentary scrutiny which the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises as important.

Mr. Norris: I accept that the possibility suggested by the hon. Gentleman might arise, but in reality I do not think that it would be likely. Right hon. Members on each side of the House eventually retire from day-to-day activity in this House, but that does not mean that their fundamental allegiances are likely to change. Having said that, I can immediately think of examples on each side of the House which run counter to my argument. The important principle is that such a Select Committee should not be composed only of Government supporters. It should be just as much an all-party Select Committee as any other Select Committee. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my argument that it should be a smaller body than is usual, for the operationally sensible and straightforward reasons that I have outlined. Secondly, it should be composed of Privy Councillors, because it is an essential prerequisite of such a Committee, not only that it should hear evidence, but that it should know what to look for and how to interpret what is sees. It is not simply a matter of hard work and application, such as is involved in producing a report


of the Social Services Committee or the European Legislation Committee. The members of the Committee will need to have been on the course before, so to speak, so as to be able to look properly at the reports which will be presented to them and be able to make something of them. With those qualifications, I think that the option in the new clause, although it falls short in some respects of the option that I proposed in Committee, should commend itself to the House.
5.30 pm
In conclusion, I ask myself one fundamental question: would the country be better off, and would public disquiet be more or less allayed, by the existence of some form of parliamantary overview of the security services? Although I accept that there are potentially a great many difficulties in the way of the establishment of such a Select Committee, and although I admit that its functions would he less than total and less than perfect, none the less I believe that, on balance, the answer to my question is that the more parliamentary overview there is of the security services, the better off the country will be.

Mr. McWilliam: I declare my interest as a Member sponsored by the union which represents the workers in telecommunications.
It has been an interesting debate. I would rather that the proposal before the House was to set up a Select Committee to oversee the security services, but that is not the case. We are dealing with a very limited proposal in new clause 1, which relates only to the interception of communications. I hope that when they are deciding how to vote my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government Benches will bear in mind the limitations of the proposed new clause.
I accept fully that there are differences of opinion within the House on whether the security services should come under parliamentary scrutiny. What I do not accept is that there is any difference within the House on the need for the House to safeguard the rights of the individual. That is what we are here for. That is why we have our privileges and why we guard them jealously. That is the reason behind the new clause.
It goes without saying that to intercept someone's communications is to interfere with his fundamental liberties and with his rights as a citizen. That will not be done under the Bill unless there are strong grounds for supposing that a person is engaging in serious crime, espionage or some other heinous act against the state. The definition of serious crime is a crime for which on conviction a person could reasonably expect to be sentenced to three years imprisonment on first conviction. The Bill is to cover serious offences.
The snag is that within the country there is a great belief that even the safeguards contained in the Bill will not stop unofficial tapping by the security services, the police special branch, Customs and Excise and other organisations. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in that respect.
I do not doubt Ministers when they say that it is their intention that the Bill will stop unofficial tapping. The Bill of itself will not prevent abuse. Until aggrieved individuals can be sure that their communications will not be intercepted without a warrant, they will not be satisfied. That cannot be established under the Bill, because the Bill deals only with whether a warrant has been properly issued. It does not at any stage deal with whether interception has taken place.
Such a provision is absent from the Bill. I tried to amend it in that way in Committee, but failed. Conservative Members probably voted as they did because they did not understand the position. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear, but it will not be within the terms of reference of the tribunal or the commissioner to establish whether an interception has been made.
If we are to interfere with the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens, the House itself would be a far greater safeguard of those rights and liberties than the Executive, whatever their political complexion, have proved to be over the years. One has only to look through history books to find out how Executives have used their power. The temptations must be enormous.
People engaged in lawful activities in their daily lives, whether at work or anywhere else, should not have their communications intercepted. The House will no doubt pass this measure, which will interfere with fundamental rights and liberties, but it must retain within itself the oversight of the way in which the restriction of rights and liberties is exercised.
As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the Bill will not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the police. As a former deputy chairman of Edinburgh city police commission, I have enough experience to know about police operational requirements and capabilities. The Bill will not interfere either with the day-to-day running of MI5, MI6, F branch, Customs and Excise or anyone else who happens to fancy earwigging on someone. It is to ensure that if an interception is made, it is made for sound reasons, that the reasons are clearly stated, that the warrant is given under the hand of the appropriate Secretary of State within the restrictions contained in the Bill and that the interception is in place only for the period of time authorised by the warrant. That is what the job of the Select Committee would entail. and nothing more. Therefore, I commend the new clause to hon. Members on all sides of the House.

Mr. Kevin Barron: If the Select Committee proposed by the new clause took evidence from people who might themselves be susceptible to acts of terrorism, surely it could meet in private, as many Select Committees do.

Mr. McWilliam: Of course it could. The Select Committee on Defence does it all the time and sidelines many reports.
My hon. Friend has reminded me of another point—that the House has control over the members of a Select Committee in a way that the House and other legal bodies would not have control over the tribunal, the commissioner or anyone else. If any member of the Select Committee leaked information, it would be a breach of the privileges of the House and that Member could be brought to the Bar of the House, as has happened, and justice could be meted out immediately by the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) may scoff If he finds that the Government are so lax about the privileges of the House as to allow breaches to take place—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: With respect to the hon. Member, it is not a question of the Government being lax. It is about the House being lax. I can tell the hon. Member now that there is no prospect of the House punishing such a person in the way that he suggests.

Mr. McWilliam: I suspect that there would be such a prospect if what was leaked was against the interests of national security. On the other hand, if what was leaked was merely embarrassing to the Government, it would mean that the Executive had done wrong, and that would be all the more reason for having a Select Committee.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The trouble with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is that he has not been in the House long enough to remember that the hon. Member for West Lothian was treated in just the way that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) suggested.

Mr. McWilliam: It was the hon. Member for the constituency that was then called West Lothian that I had in mind when I said that.
I remind the House that it is our duty to defend the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country. If we merely leave the Bill as it is, we are being negligent in that duty. However, if we introduce the Select Committee, it means that the House is saying unequivocally, "We accept that we are depriving people of liberties and privileges, and we take responsibility for that, but we expect that the people who do it will be answerable to us."

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): This has been an interesting debate. It is obviously right that the House should have had the opportunity to consider whether a Select Committee might have a role in these matters. However, I have a sneaking sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I am not sure whether one could find an Act of Parliament in which there was a reference to a Select Committee which would play a specific role. I have just had a look at the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, and I did not find a reference to one. However, that is by the way. The point is that it is obviously right that we should consider whether there is a role for a Select Committee in these matters.
I am not sure what is meant by "oversee" in the new clause. Is it simply reviewing work, or is it calling a person to account? Is it calling a person to account before or after he acts? I do not know. What is meant by "any person responsible for"? There is little doubt that it covers the Secretary of State, but does it cover the telephone engineer? If is does, have we not been considering for quite a while what protection we should put in the Bill for those who intercept because they have been told to do so as a result of a warrant issued by the Secretary of State? Will the telephone engineer be called to account by a Select Committee for what he properly did in response to a warrant? I should have thought that he could be, according to the wording of the new clause.
Those are not drafting points. A Select Committee sounds very fine. On the face of it, parliamentary accountability is an easy cause always to espouse, but something more precise than that is required. When one tries to be more precise, one sees the difficulties, some of which were identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I shall refer to them in a moment. However, I should first say a quick word about how the security service — much of the debate has focused on it—is controlled now.
The starting point with the security service is the directive first issued in 1952, and endorsed by all subsequent Governments. The principle underpinning the

directive is quite clear. The Director General is responsible personally and directly to the Home Secretary for the proper implementation of all the objectives in the directive. He is appointed by the Government and has to retain the confidence of the Government. He seeks direction and guidance from the Home Secretary on the way in which the security service sets about things, but — this is all-important — Ministers do not involve themselves in detailed information obtained by the security service in individual cases, save, of course, where an application is made for an interception warrant.
Ministers do not involve themselves politically. They do not make political decisions, any more than does the Director General, who is enjoined by the directive itself to see that the security service is kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence. Nothing is done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community or any other matter than the defence of the realm as a whole.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister has just made the amazing statement that neither the Director General nor the Home Secretary is acting in a political way when he signs a warrant. It is pretty well acknowledged that Mr. Cox of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had a warrant signed for his phone to be tapped. Was that, or was that not, a political decision?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening carefully to what I said. I know that I was going rather quickly. I must tell him that he must not expect, as a result of such a question, to find that any Minister is drawn into giving a reply that might be taken either as a denial of an allegation of interception or an admission. If he has listened to our debates, he will know that time and again hon. Members have referred to how wise has been the tradition of Ministers never to be drawn into either admissions or denials, so I shall not be drawn now.
All I was saying was that there is a clear directive, laid down in 1952, which enjoins the Director General to see that the security service is kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence. If the Director General is carrying out his duties properly, that is precisely what he does. The Director General is accountable to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, of course, does not involve himself in detailed information obtained by the security service in individual cases, save, of course, where an application is made for an interception warrant. Ministers do not therefore involve themselves politically. They do not make political decisions, any more than the Director General himself does so. I cannot be clearer than that.

Mr. Cohen: If the Minister is saying that the Director General makes his decisions on a non-political basis, and that the Secretary of State signs warrants on a non-political basis, what is the role of the Secretary of State? Why is he needed?

Mr. Waddington: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "political". We are making a political decision when we write into an Act of Parliament what should be the powers of the Secretary of State. However, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Secretary of State makes some party political judgment as


to whether there should be interception, all I can say is that he is entirely wrong. The Secretary of State exercises powers which have been approved by Parliament. He sticks to those powers. He does not go outside those powers. What we are now doing in this exercise is to spell out absolutely clearly in an Act of Parliament what those powers are.
What I said about the difficulties of the new clause was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The Select Committee is required to oversee the work of those who receive the product of interception. That is one of the things that the new clause is saying. That includes the police and Customs and Excise. For the first time a Select Committee — my hon. Friend was obviously right about this—would have oversight of the work of the police, but, quite illogically, only when their work involved in part a product of interception. That would be ridiculous. It would be the first time that a Select Committee would be able to call before it a member of the police force and cross-examine that police officer about the way in which he had carried out his investigations into a particular case. That would be a departure—

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Employment called the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and three police constables to account for their policing of industrial disputes and to give their opinions of the legislation? Far from the matter being about general policy, there was a detailed examination of policing of the steel and coal disputes.

Mr. Waddington: The clearest distinction has always been drawn between matters of policy and detailed examinations of the way in which detailed operations have been carried out. If hon. Members will look at the new clause, they will see that it says that a Select Committee would be able to
oversee the work of any person
using the product of interception. That means that the Select Committee would be able, for instance, to have before it a police officer who had carried out a detailed inquiry. Just because part of that inquiry had involved interception in that particular case, a detailed inquiry would be made by the Select Committee into that particular police operation.
As I said earlier, that may be right or it may be wrong. I think that it is wrong. It would certainly be novel. It would examine the judgment of those who were directing inquiries. How could it be the job of a Select Committee to interfere in police operational matters, and how could it oversee the product of interception without looking into the consequences of the inquiry in which interception had played one small part? As for the security services, how could it be right for a Select Committee to have oversight of operational matters? It would undermine ministerial responsibility. It would also undermine the proper responsibilities of senior management and the Director General. I emphasise that the Government do not challenge the need for independent scrutiny of authorised interception. That is provided for in the Bill. However, it would be a different matter if a Select Committee were to carry out inquiries into operational matters at perhaps the same time as the Director General was quite rightly carrying out such an examination.

Mr. MacLennan: At an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill the Minister attached weight to the

importance of parliamentary accountability and drew attention to the provisions of clause 8, under which the Commissioner is to place an annual report before Parliament. Despite the drafting defects of the new clause, does the Minister not believe that there would be some merit in a Select Committee considering the Commissioner's report so that in turn it would report and give some reality to parliamentary accountability?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that I should be drawn on that point. The hon. Gentleman is asking for my opinion about a new clause which would be entirely different from this new clause and which would be directed towards an entirely different purpose. Therefore, I believe that the House will appreciate it if I stick to this new clause. The Government are opposed to it on a number of grounds. In terms of security, there is no need to add yet another parliamentary dimension to the existing arrangements for control and accountability. The idea of a Select Committee overseeing operational and day-to-day matters is fundamentally objectionable. Oversight could not mean anything else. This kind of oversight is not the task of a Select Committee. Such an arrangement would run counter to the provisions contained in the Bill for independent oversight and scrutiny and would weaken, not enhance, the proper responsibilities of those concerned. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 212.

Division No. 183]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dubs, Alfred


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashdown, Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Foulkes, George


Boyes, Roland
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freud, Clement


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Robert
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
John, Brynmor


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cowans, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Craigen, J. M.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Lambie, David


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)






Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Loyden, Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meadowcroft, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Michie, William
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, R.


Nellist, David
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James


Park, George
Wilson, Gordon


Penhaligon, David
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prescott, John



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redmond, M.
Mr. John Mc William and


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Richardson, Ms Jo





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dunn, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'ro'th E)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Farr, Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander


Benyon, William
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galley, Roy


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorst, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brinton, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Cockeram, Eric
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon
 Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Hirst Michael


Corrie, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)





Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Osborn, Sir John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Charles
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barr


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harve


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lewis,Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Luce, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Speed, Keith


Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


MacGregor, John
Spencer, Derek


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David John
Stern, Michael


McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Major, John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maples, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Marlow, Antony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson. Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
 Thurnham, Peter


Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walden, George


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Warren, Kenneth


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Watson, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Whitfield, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Needham, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Nelson, Anthony



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Tristan Garel Jones and


Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

WARRANTS FOR INTERCEPTION

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 19 leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) for the defence of the realm or to prevent subversion, terrorism or espionage;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 7, in clause 10, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
subversion" means an attempt to overthrow Parliament by unlawful means;'.

Mr. Corbett: The amendments concern more than mere definitions, which they may appear at first sight to be. They concern an area that is vital to every citizen—our freedom within the law, as individuals and collectively, to challenge and try to change Government policy. That is important not just with the present Government, who have shown such scant regard for freedom in relation, for example, to GCHQ at Cheltenham or their attempt to deny the vote to millions of citizens in the metropolitan counties and the greater London area. When the Labour party forms a Government, Conservative Members will no doubt wish to challenge our policies. The road of freedom does not have just a left-hand side or a right-hand side. There are two sides to that important road.
The first criterion on which the Bill allows the Home Secretary to issue a warrant to snoop and spy is
in the interests of national security".
That must be one of the most overworked and abused phrases in the world, as it can be held to cover anything that anyone wishes it to cover. Who actually defines national security? I would argue that possession of American nuclear weapons by this country is the gravest threat to our national security and that the sale of weapons to the middle east and South America also threatens our national security because it threatens peace and stability in those areas, but I suspect that the Minister and his supporters take a different view.
We believe that the words
in the interests of national security
are too wide and too vague. They are wide enough and vague enough to run the risk of misuse in any big brother, or indeed big sister, state. This is not a case in which we all know what we mean but find it difficult to agree an exact form of words. The Opposition believe that the definition in the Bill is drawn deliberately wide to give the Home Secretary maximum discretion. We do not believe that our freedom can or should be left in the hands, and resting on the judgment, of one individual. Our amendment therefore seeks to put more flesh on the concept of national security.
The definition in amendment No. I seeks to be more specific. It refers to "subversion, terrorism or espionage", which is what national security is generally assumed to be about—something separate from serious crime, although equally serious, and standing on those three legs. That being so, amendment No. 7 seeks to define what is meant by subversion. In the past few months, the Government have provided a wide variety of choice in terms of what constitutes subversion, but in our view none of those definitions are acceptable.
The recently published terms of reference for the three wise men state simply that a subversive group is subversive because it is
acknowledged as such by the Minister".
That is menacing in its starkness. It suggests that the Minister can say to an individual or group, "You are subversive because I say so." The opening paragraphs of the document make it clear that a person suspected or accused of being subversive does not even have to be a card-carrying member of an organisation held to be subversive. The document refers simply to suspected sympathies. That is further watered down by the words
is susceptible to pressure from such organisations or groups" —

that is, those judged to be subversive.
That clearly and frighteningly opens the door to the advent of the thought police.
However, the position is even worse. Under the test of susceptibility to pressure, scarcely a Member of this House is not susceptible to pressure at some time or another. Pressure does not always walk up to hon. Members waving flags and identifying itself. We all at times run the risk of being taken in. That three-part test is rather dangerous.
The Home Office gave us a Christmas present in the form of the guidelines for the special branch. There we find that subversive activities are
those which threaten the safety or well being of the State, and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means".
That definition is far too wide. It is open to a wide variety of interpretations, not just by the Home Secretary but by any officer serving in the special branch of the 43 police forces. Day by day, such officers are called upon to make judgments against that guideline definition of subversion.
Amendment No. 7 makes it clear that we prefer that there should be in the test a mention of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of the action being taken or proposed to be taken. The Home Office definition uses such phrases as
safety or well being of the State".
We could probably stay here until Christmas trying to agree among ourselves what that phrase means.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Home Office definition but he is quoting from the definition propounded by a Labour Minister, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in 1975.

Mr. Corbett: He was a Home Office Minister.

Mr. Waddington: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to talk about the Home Office definition as though we had propounded that definition in the last month or so. It was propounded by a Labour Government.

Mr. Corbett: The present proprietors of the Home Office have accepted that definition. The Opposition do not accept that Lord Harris's definition was meant to be given the solemnity and importance that is now claimed for it. It was given on the back of an answer to a random question in another place. That is why we do not attach to it the weight that the Minister seems to, and seems to think that we should.

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. It must be within his knowledge that the Labour Government when in office followed that definition in exercising the powers to intercept.

Mr. Corbett: I accept that absolutely. As the Minister will have divined during the course of these debates, the Labour party sometimes tries to learn from experience when in government and from the mistakes that parties can make when in government. I tell the Minister once again that when we return to government we will change that definition.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister protests too much. When Lord Harris gave that definition, he did so as a Home Office Minister. It was a Home Office definition, albeit under the preceding Government. At no time, to the best of my knowledge, was that definition changed or debated in this House. It was accepted. There has been no


parliamentary debate of the question whether there should be a different definition, or of the earlier one given by Lord Denning.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is quite right, to the best of my knowledge.
We have said time and time again in the debates on the Bill and elsewhere that we do not like that definition and that we shall change it as soon as we have the chance. The definition is far too wide. It uses blanket phrases such as
the safety… of the State
and
intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy".
It qualifies that phrase with the words
by political, industrial or violent means".
As has already been said, many of us became active in Labour party politics precisely in order to use lawful political means in order to try to turn out the present Government by means of the ballot box and replace them. There is nothing wrong in that ambition, which was shared by hon. Members on the Conservative Benches when in opposition.

Mr. Cash: I may have missed it, but I cannot find the word "subversion" in the text of the Bill. It is in the amendment, but is it in the Bill?

Mr. Corbett: One of the purposes of the amendment is to define subversion within the Bill as an alternative to using blanket phrases such as
the interests of national security".

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman should refrain from attacking the Government for not including a definition that he would like to include in the Bill himself.

Mr. Corbett: I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point. One of our complaints about the Bill is that the definitions are inadequate. In our view, there is no proper definition of subversion. I have quoted from documents. I will not weary the House by doing so again.
I have tried to place the amendments in the context of the proper concern of all of us to defend the rights of every individual citizen collectively and lawfully to challenge and try to change the policies of Governments of any colour. We believe that our alternative definition of subversion not only helps to make that clear but also underlines, restates and reaffirms the fact that that freedom is most important.

Mr. Waddington: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Waddington.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I shall be happy to sit down again.

Mr. Winnick: If the Minister stands up, the debate is closed, I suppose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot call an hon. Member who does not stand up.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman should wake up.

Mr. Winnick: The Government Whip seems to be even more vocal than usual, even though he never makes a speech.
The essence of much of the disquiet which exists about security matters is the question how subversion is interpreted by the security services. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) said an hour or so ago, there is a good deal of disquiet, even if it is more openly expressed on this side of the House than on the Government side. In my view, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was absolutely right to say that the present definition of subversion must give rise to concern. Speaking in another place in February 1975, Lord Hams interpreted subversion as activities
which threaten the safety or well-being of the State, and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1975; Vol. 357, c. 947.]
That gives the security service a great deal of discretion, and far more than it should have. That is why, when I raised this matter on the Adjournment on the day that the House went into the Easter recess, I said that the definition of subversion was far too wide. It is all very well for the Minister to say that Lord Harris gave the definition when a Labour Minister, but he is no longer a member of the Labour party. I do not think that there is a great deal of regret about that. Moreover, as far as I am aware, the definition of subversion has never been debated in the House.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman missed the significance of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said in reply to my intervention. He confessed that that definition had been expressed by a Labour Minister and that the Labour Government had operated their powers to intercept on the basis of that definition. That is the important thing to bear in mind.

Mr. Winnick: It is remarkable how Ministers pray the Labour Government in aid when they support Labour's activities. It is otherwise denunciation. I do not complain. The Minister is using whatever arguments he can find to advance his argument. Nevertheless, Lord Harris's definition of subversion was never debated, I believe, in the House. The matter affects citizens and civil rights and we should all be anxious about how such rights can be eroded or undermined. It must be right for the House to debate what the definition should be.

Mr. Cash: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like a debate on what subversion means, but it is the Opposition amendment which includes that word. It is impossible for us to deal with a debate in which the Opposition are attacking the Government for including in the Bill a word that does not appear in it.

Mr. Winnick: It might not appear in the Bill — I concede that point—but Ministers have stated, and the Home Secretary made it clear when he gave evidence in public session to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the special branch works on the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris in February 1975. It is therefore reasonable to assume that when the special branch and the security services decide on these matters they will use that definition, which is the subject of a great deal of controversy.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman, when he is discussing definitions, tell us what espionage means as that word is in the amendment and is not defined?

Mr. Winnick: We are debating amendment No. 1 at the moment. Lord Denning gave a definition of subversion in the 1960s. Yesterday I prayed Lord Denning in aid on another matter and I am about to do so again now. He must think that he has a fan on the Labour Benches. With respect to his lordship, Lord Denning is not renowned for his pro-Labour movement sympathies. I imagine that even Conservative Members take him to be quite a safe person. Nevertheless, he gave a far closer definition that Lord Harris. He defined a subversive as one who
would overthrow or contemplate the overthrow of Government by unlawful means".
That is very much in line with the amendment.
I should like the House to be reasonably satisfied that those who carry out these delicate and sensitive duties do not at the same time erode the rights of which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke. Such rights have been slowly built up over centuries. Is not the safeguarding of the rights of citizens one of our main responsibilities? Some time ago, I raised the case of Mrs. Haigh, who was interviewed and lied to by the special branch regarding letters that she had written about cruise missiles. Some people might ask, "What does one person matter?" Surely one person's civil liberies are as important as those of many.
Other matters which cause concern have come to light as well. The security services do not have the complete confidence of everyone. I accept that we must have a security service. When asked a few weeks ago whether I favoured a security service, I gave the obvious answer. I know of no country without one. We know how dictatorships operate, but democracies require a security service too. However, such a service would be in a stronger position if it had the confidence of the whole House and the public, and I am not satisfied that the security service understands or appreciates sufficiently the strong feelings about the right of dissent and the right to hold minority opinions.
About three months ago, the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told the Home Secretary at Question Time that if these people—he did not qualify who they were—were not investigated, he wanted his money back. What was the reaction of Tory Members? They roared with laughter and approval. Included among them, I am afraid, was the Home Secretary. Some of the people under investigation are acting perfectly legally. They just happen to disagree with the Government on major issues, such as defence. Should they be subject to surveillance and investigation, simply because they disagree with the Government? The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) nods his head in agreement with that proposition. The difference between him and me is that I do believe in parliamentary democracy and people's rights that do not exist in eastern Europe or Latin America. I believe that people have a right to disagree and to express those opinions freely without being subject to investigation and surveillance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton has mentioned a section of the security service. On 4 April, I mentioned the F branch of MI5. F2 investigates trade unions and F7 investigates various other political groups. Apparently there is a special group of the F branch which investigates teachers, Members of Parliament, lawyers and journalists. Those allegations have been made —

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Allegations?

Mr. Winnick: Of course they are allegations. Am I supposed to go to MI5 or write the Director General a letter asking him to confirm them? Such things though cannot be dismissed out of hand.
If it is true that such a branch and such sub-branches exist, should we not be worried? Should we simply dismiss the allegations and say that, even if they are true, those sections of MI5 are justified? One of the functions of the House, I hope, is to safeguard civil liberties. We must be worried if there are civil servants in the security service with files on a very large number of people and groups. It is interesting that there has been no allegation that investigations are made into the Conservative party, the City or the stock exchange. If there were, would not Conservative Members be worried? Of course they would. They would be probing the issue and causing a fuss.

Mr. Cash: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill provides for investigations into questions arising from economic well-being, and the pointed remark which he has just made goes rather wider than the content of the Bill.

Mr. Winnick: That is a matter for the Chair. I do not think that we need a substitute Deputy Speaker in the form of the hon. Gentleman who has graced us by his presence.
I do not expect for a moment that the Minister will accept the amendment, because he does not believe in any form of parliamentary scrutiny of the security services. However, even though these amendments may be lost, I hope that they contain the sort of changes which the next Labour Government will be able to carry out. Given a tighter definition of subversion, one hopes that it will not be possible in future for Conservative Members, such as the Minister, to bait us on what the Labour party did when in office.
6.30 pm
Much has been said about those who want to undermine parliamentary democracy. Yet in the last few days it has been discovered—it is not an allegation but a confirmed fact—that someone working at the Department of Trade and Industry has a known Nazi past, has been involved in the most extreme Right-wing organisations, went to prison for Nazi activity and apparently even now is considering the formation of a new organisation based on race hate and fascism.
Despite all the talk about the need for a security service, which I accept, it is surprising that someone with such a background and involvement in extremist Right-wing politics, and who is a declared hater of blacks and Jews, should be a civil servant working in the Department of Trade and Industry. I wonder about the basis on which that gentleman was investigated, or do we take it that so long as someone has a Nazi background and has been to prison for Nazi activity, it is perfectly acceptable, whereas if someone is the general secretary of CND, files can be opened and such a person can be the subject of much gossip by special branch officers through interviewing a former editor of the CND journal?
Two laws seem to operate—one for those who carry out perfectly lawful responsibilities, and another for people on the extreme Right, such as the person I mentioned, who, according to the Department only yesterday, would continue in his job. There must be a much wider look at the security service. At the end of the


day, steps should be taken to strengthen the rights of ordinary people, thereby allowing the security service to operate under a much tighter definition of subversion.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not doubt that the intention behind the amendment is worthy, in that it seeks to strengthen the defence of the individual from unacceptable intrusions into privacy by the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion. But from the way in which the amendment seeks to achieve its ends and the effect of its language, it is clear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is under a misconception.
The hon. Gentleman made an error in believing that the most effective way of protecting the citizen from an abuse of discretion is by seeking to narrow that discretion. As I said on Second Reading, senior Ministers who have the duty to authorise interception of communications must have a very wide—in many cases, almost unlimited—discretion, and the real protection of the individual from the abuse of power which such discretion makes possible is the ex post facto examination of the exercise of the discretion, provided in the Bill by the continuing role of the commissioner, and the right of access to a tribunal for a remedy.
The attempt to narrow the ambit of the Secretary of State's discretion in respect of clause 2(2)(a) should not be supported. Whether or not the amendment succeeds in narrowing the discretion is far from resolved by the speech of the hon. Member for Erdington. I do not believe it achieves the purpose which it seeks, nor do I believe that the definition in amendment No. 1—
for the defence of the realm or to prevent subversion, terrorism or espionage"—
is narrower than that contained in the phrase "national security" which is in the Bill. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said has persuaded me that the Labour party would succeed in reducing the circumstances in which Secretaries of State might exercise their discretion if Parliament were to make the mistake of accepting the definition in amendment No. 1, which I consider to be verbose and unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman's apparent justification for the amendment was some dissatisfaction with the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris of Greenwich, a former Labour Minister, and acted upon by the Labour Government during their term of office.
The hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary point when he said that he and his colleagues had been elected to use political, industrial and other means to overthrow the Government.

Mr. Corbett: I did not say that.

Mr. Maclennan: When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that he said something like it.

Mr. Corbett: The point I was trying to make was that, by political means through the ballot box, we should try to throw out the Government.

Mr. Maclennan: That reinforces my point. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood Lord Harris's definition, which refers not to Government but to parliamentary democracy. It is wholly misconceived to seek to redefine

subversion when that conceals the circumstances set out by Lord Harris, which do not need to be altered. actvities intended to overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means are patently unlawful.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to himself, because the definition is in two parts and it is not even a question of either-or. The definition as a whole includes
activities…which threaten the safety or well being of the State",
and which are also
intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1975; Vol. 357, c. 947.]
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no need for even a moment's hesitation and that no one but an idiot would conclude that trying to replace the Government through the ballot box came within Lord Harris's definition?

Mr. Maclennan: I agree entirely with the Minister. I was merely focusing on the part of Lord Harris's definition which the hon. Member for Erdington addressed—his reference to the overthrow of parliamentary democracy.
The amendment dresses up a proposal which is somewhat misleading. On the face of it, the proposal seeks to narrow the Minister's discretion, but it does not achieve that. On the face of it, the proposal provides a remedy for the aggrieved citizen, but it does not achieve that. For those reasons, the House should reject the amendment.

Mr. Waddington: The question which the House is addressing is whether we can find a more appropriate phrase than "national security" when defining the Secretary of State's powers to issue warrants under clause 2.
First, the phrase "national security" is no stranger to us. It has appeared in many statutes over the years. It appeared in the Employment Protection Act 1975, in the Race Relations Act 1976, and in about 50 further Acts sprinkled through the statute books. No Government have found it necessary or appropriate to define the term, which Parliament has accepted as it is, when passing those Acts. By their nature, decisions about questions of national security must be for Ministers, who must form a judgment in the light of all the information available to them about what does or does not raise issues of national security. Uniquely, under the Bill there is an independent check on those decisions by the tribunal or the commissioner, who will be able to see all the facts.
Therefore, Parliament has less to complain about on this occasion than on previous occasions when the Labour Government were perfectly happy to put before Parliament Bills in which the phrase "national security" was used with no suggestion that any protection should be afforded to citizens lest the Labour Government should misconstrue the meaning of that expression.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Given the fact that the Government are providing these new safeguards, is it not curious that the previous Administration, which operated Lord Harris's definition, at no time felt constrained to bring to the House legislation to deal with the problem about which Opposition Members now complain?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right. We had this nonsense from the Opposition last year on the Data


Protection Act 1984. Every sort of fiddling, piddling, ridiculous criticism was made of the Bill, but no explanation given why the Labour Government never introduced one when they were in power. Yet they now try to pose as the guardians of liberty. As they did nothing when they were in office, we can be excused for growing slightly irritated by their cant.
Secondly, the use of the phrase is appropriate because it properly reflects the way in which interception has been authorised by successive Governments of the Left and Right. It emphasises the important point that the Bill provides for no extension of existing practices. That is why I was glad to hear the reply of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) a few moments ago.
Thirdly, the use of the phrase "national security" is especially appropriate in the context of the Bill because article 8 of the convention on human rights refers to matters being done in the interests of national security. What could be more natural than for us to import into the Bill a phrase from the convention, when part of this exercise is to ensure that we conform to our obligations under the convention?
6.45 pm
Fourthly, when I consider the Maxwell Fyfe directive, I can see why the formulation in the amendment was reached. However, it is obvious from all that the hon. Gentleman has said that there is a complete misconception by the Opposition. There is obviously more to preserving the nation's security than safeguarding against subversion, terrorism and espionage. I am taking not merely the narrow point that the amendment deals only with prevention and not with the detection of those who may have engaged in such activities — although it is extremely odd that detection should be omitted—but the point that the defence of the realm, which is one of the phrases that appears in the amendment, together with these words is of uncertain meaning. If, in this context, it means no more than defence against armed attack, the phrase is certainly not wide enough to cover all that it is necessary to do and that has previously been done.
I refer hon. Members to paragraph 10 of the White Paper published in February 1985. It states that interception is authorised
in accordance with the Government's requirements for intelligence in support of its defence and foreign policies when…that…is necessary in the interests of national security.
Interception may be necessary to protect our national security at international level to provide secret intelligence in the foreign and defence areas. Undoubtedly, the acquisition of such intelligence may sometimes be essential in the interests of national security. Without it, the Government's ability to safeguard the country's vital interests would be undermined in a way which I do not believe Opposition Members can intend. No previous Government have contemplated the sort of changes proposed in the amendment, and great harm would be done to our national interests if the amendment were carried.
I now turn to the question of subversion. First, I shall put into perspective the use of the power to intercept on this ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was right continually to remind the House that at present the word "subversion" does not appear in the Bill. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether a warrant is necessary in the interests of national security. The starting point is satisfaction in the mind of the Minister that

interception is necessary. His view can be considered by the commissioner. If the commissioner gets it wrong, his view may be rejected by the tribunal, if a complaint is made to it by someone who is affected. Therefore, although Lord Harris's definition is a statement of cases within one limb of the national security test, it is not part of the Bill, and no definition of subversion is needed for the Bill to work effectively.
I shall now deal with the meaning of subversion, because the Opposition seek to incorporate a definition of it which not only does not correspond with Lord Harris's definition—we have gone over that so often that hon. Members must be tired of hearing that that is the case—but which is different from and far more limited than the one that they sought to incorporate in Committee. I remind the House that they then defined subversion as
having in contemplation the overthrow of the Government.
Now they say that that is wrong and that subversion exists only when there is an attempt. Even more strangely, they say that it should not be an attempt to overthrow a Government, only to overthrow a Parliament.
Can one imagine anything more ridiculous? So tight is the definition which they are now trying to persuade Parliament to accept that it is hard to see how anything could be subversion under this definition except the gunpowder plot. It is sheer nonsense, and we have better things to do in the House than to debate sheer nonsense. There can be no doubt that those changes would make far more difficult the task—

Sir Philip Goodhart: Surely the gunpowder plot was an attempt to blow up the House of Lords. I thought that was the policy of the Opposition.

Mr. Waddington: That may be so, but it is absurd that they should put down an amendment on Report which is entirely contrary to what they said in Committee.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the last time there was at attempt to put down such an amendment was during the interregnum, when Cromwell was in charge of things?

Mr. Waddington: I shall not indulge in a dissertation on the history of the Commonwealth. I intend to draw my remarks to a close, which will no doubt give much satisfaction to the House. I am sure that hon. Members will not hesitate a moment before rejecting the most absurd amendment that has been tabled during the proceedings on this Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 226.

Division No. 184]
[6.51 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard


Blair, Anthony
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Boyes, Roland
Cowans, Harry


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Caborn, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Deakins, Eric


Campbell, Ian
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dormand, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Douglas, Dick
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Meacher, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mikardo, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Redmond, M.


Garrett, W. E.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gould, Bryan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Leadbitter, Ted
Tinn, James


Leighton, Ronald
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wareing, Robert


Litherland, Robert
White, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wilson, Gordon


Loyden, Edward
Winnick, David


McGuire, Micheal



Mckay, Allen (Penistone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. John McWilliam and


Madden, Max
Mr. Robin Corbett.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bruinvels, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alton, David
Bulmer, Esmond


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Cockeram, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Coombs, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John


Benyon, William
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cranborne, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Crouch, David


Blackburn, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brinton, Tim
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Farr, Sir John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Favell, Anthony





Fookes, Miss Janet
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Mather, Carol


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freud, Clement
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Galley, Roy
Meadowcroft, Michael


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Needham, Richard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Norris, Steven


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Harris, David
Osborn, Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayes, J.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayward, Robert
Penhaligon, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Heddle, John
Porter, Barry


Hicks, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Hirst, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powley, John


Holt, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hordern, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Irving, Charles
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jessel, Toby
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Speed, Keith


Kirkwood, Archy
Spence, John


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Spencer, Derek


Knowles, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knox, David
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wainwright, R.


Luce, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lyell, Nicholas
Walden, George


McCrindle, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wallace, James


Macfarlane, Neil
Waller, Gary


MacGregor, John
Walters, Dennis


Maclean, David John
Warren, Kenneth


Maclennan, Robert
Watson, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Watts, John


Madel, David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Major, John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Malins, Humfrey
Wheeler, John


Malone, Gerald
Whitfield, John


Maples, John
Whitney, Raymond


Marlow, Antony
Wiggin, Jerry


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and



Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 23 at end insert
'or unless the persons whose transmissions by post or whose communications by a public telecommunications system are the subject of a warrant are officials of any Government department or of Her Majesty's Armed Forces or of any police force, who are authorised to receive and read information that for the time being is classified as secret.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 29 at end insert—
'(5) No warrant shall be needed to intercept the communications of any public servant who is entitled to read Government documents classified "secret"...

Sir Philip Goodhart: In the debate on the previous amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) pointed out that the word "subversion" does not have any part in the Bill, although all the speeches from the Labour Benches, without exception, have touched on the subject of subversion, in one way or another.
The amendments which I and my hon Friend the member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) have tabled are not concerned with trying to draw up guidelines on tapping the telephones of business men or of trade union leaders who may be conspiring with agents of foreign countries to do damage to the country. We are not concerned with trying to draw up guidelines to exclude or include members of organisations which may be seeking to dismantle the defences of the country.
The amendments reflect the concern of my hon. Friend and myself that we should do nothing in the Bill that makes it more difficult to track down spies and traitors who have high position in the public service. We are anxious that we should not inadvertently make it more difficult to unmask what the headline writers in the popular press would call "traitors in high places". No one has to seek employment in that part of the public service which entitles him to work with secret material. Those who choose to undertake this work, whether it be in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, GCHQ or the Underwater Research Establishment at Portland, are generally required to undergo some form of security vetting.
Despite that, within the past few years, vetted employees from all these establishments have been convicted of espionage. Therefore, it seems probable that our vetting procedures need some improvement and change from time to time. I do not see why the routine random tapping of personal communication should not be part of the continuous vetting system.

Mr. Golding: Would this category include all members of the Privy Council?

Sir Philip Goodhart: I see no reason why anybody working with secret material should be excluded.
I am concerned that the Bill will inadvertently make it more difficult to introduce such random taps, so my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and I have put down these amendments. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) in everything that he has said. I recognise that he is suffering from a

temporary disability, which I am sure will disappear quickly, and that the brevity of his speech reflected that. He had a great deal more to say and no doubt he would have said it if he had been able to do so.
My hon. Friend and I seek to tackle the problem of traitors and spies at very high levels within the Government. Our view is that we need to do a better job of discovering those spies and traitors who exist, or have existed, in high places, and also of preventing their activities being used to damage the highest interests of the state.
I start by defining the problem. The external threat from the Soviet bloc intelligence services remains undiminished. The internal threat has become more varied and grown more serious. The fall in Communist party membership
has been accompanied by the proliferation of new subversive groups of the extreme Left and the extreme Right (mainly the former) whose aim is to overthrow democratic parliamentary government in this country by violent or other unconstitutional means, not shrinking, in the case of the most extreme groups, from terrorism to achieve their aims. They might well seek to make public information that is injurious to the interests of this country, not at the behest or for the benefit of any foreign power, but simply to harm this country itself, whether by causing a rift between it and its allies or otherwise, and by these means to weaken its defences against the overthrow of democratic government here by force.
Those are the words of the Security Commission as quoted to the House in the White Paper laid by the Prime Minister in 1981–82. To summarise what it says, both the external threat and the internal threat are serious and growing.
Nor is that the only definition of the threat to which the amendments are addressed. Only 18 months ago we had information in a further report of the Security Commission dealing with the damage caused by the spy and traitor, Geoffrey Prime. We read in paragraph 5.22 of the 1983 report of the Security Commission:
In the course of Prime's employment both in the RAF and in GCHQ…he had access to information of the very highest secrecy. An account of the information which we believe Prime passed to the Russians and our assessment of the damage he caused are set out in Appendix D.
Quite rightly, appendix D was never published, but we get some inkling of what it contains from paragraph 1.6 of the same report of the Security Commission:
The disclosures following Prime's trial naturally occasioned the gravest public disquiet that a traitor involved in the most secret intelligence work should have for so long escaped discovery. Moreover the extent of the injury to the public interest was greatly magnified by the fact that United States secrets had been no less gravely compromised than our own.
There can be no doubt that the problem which my hon. Friend and I are addressing in these amendments is very real. Nor are these the only examples where people in high positions have behaved as spies and traitors.
There was the extraordinary case of Commander Trestrail, though I ought not perhaps to apply the words "spy" or "traitor" to him. A police officer appointed to safeguard in the first instance the Duke of Edinburgh and subsquently the Queen, Trestrail was in no sense a traitor or a spy. But he was a personality who could, because of his sexual proclivities, have been capable of being blackmailed, as has happened in other cases.
According to the report of the Security Commission. at the time that Trestrail was originally engaged to safeguard Her Majesty, he had not been positively vetted. That is most peculiar when one remembers that all members of the special branch who are engaged in protecting foreign


Heads of State or Heads of Government when they are in Britain are positively vetted. Trestrail at the material time was not, though I should add that since then the Metropolitan police have imposed positive vetting on all members of the royalty protection squad.
7.15 pm
I mention a number of other individuals of whom I have had some passing personal experience. During the 1950s, when I worked in the United States, I came into contact from time to time with senior members of the British diplomatic service working in the British embassy. I am not sure whether I ever met Burgess and Maclean together, but from time to time I had contact with both. Neither of those two was ever imagined by me or any of their colleagues to be traitors or spies, but we now know that they were.
Subsequently, it was widely argued in the United States that there was a third man—a third traitor and spy.

Mr. Golding: What are we to make of this hon. Member who claims the acquaintanceship of those two spies and then puts up a smokescreen about a third man?

Mr. Griffiths: It was bruited about in the United States, especially in the intelligence community, that there was a third man. At the time that was denied by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and members of the security service. Subsequently we discovered that Kim Philby, whom I also met, was a spy and a traitor. If it helps the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) with his interventions, I may say that a former British ambassador, whom I know well, shocked me the other day by asking me whether I remembered when we had last met. I replied that I did not. He said, "It was when I gave you lunch in Beirut with Kim Philby." I had forgotten the incident.
My point is that Burgess, Maclean and Philby were all spies in high places and that they did irreparable damage to our country. They were members of the foreign service, but there were others in the defence services. I think of Vassall and of Blake, and since then we have had the shocking case of Geoffrey Prime.
I make one specific point about the Prime case to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who I am glad to see in his place. The allegations about spying in the security services, notably in the book by Mr. Chapman Pincher, were examined very carefully by the Security Commission. My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that in May 1982 the Diplock Security Commission reported to the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister, who has been more open about the procedures of the Security Commission than any other British Prime Minister, told the House in her White Paper of May 1982:
The procedures as they have been applied…have worked well.
She added that the present system of security was well conceived and operated effectively. Unfortunately, as we discovered some nine months later, that conclusion was not accurate. It was then discovered that, despite the investigations that the Security Commission itself had conducted, Geoffrey Prime was still at work, undetected.
It is right to remind the House that, as the White Paper of that day made clear, there had been an investigation by

the Security Commission which lasted nine months and involved 32 meetings and interviews with 36 witnesses, among whom, I must suppose, since the Security Commission was conducting the investigation, were the heads of all our counter-espionage services. At the end of that investigation, the Security Commission gave the Prime Minister its considered assessment of the efficacy of the vetting arrangements set up after Radcliffe and applied throughout Geoffrey Prime's career. That assessment said all was well. But that assessment turned out to be wrong. It did not uncover Geoffrey Prime, but it should have done so.
If the security services had had better instrumentalities, would they have been able to do the job that they failed to do? The Security Commission concluded that at the time there were no available resources whereby Prime's treachery could have been detected—save only perhaps the polygraph. I understand that experiments as to the efficacy of the polygraph are continuing and, no doubt at some stage, the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister will give us the conclusions. However, I believe that, if the security services had had available to them the powers proposed in the amendment, there would in fact have been a much greater chance that they would have apprehended Prime during his period at GCHQ. No one can be certain that that would have happened but the chances would have been far better if it had been axiomatic that no person handling intelligence material at the level that was available to Prime should be immune from having his telephone tapped.
The central point of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and myself is that too many of the acts of treason and espionage that have come to light have been conducted by people at the very highest levels.

Mr. Corbett: From public schools.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that. Too many of them have been from public schools. Too many have come from the Oxbridge background. But that is in no way an indictment of public schools or Oxbridge. What matters is that too many of these acts of espionage and subversion have come from those occupying positions in which they have access to information that is classified for the time being as secret.
Those who join the police service put aside most of their personal civil liberties, and rightly so. From the moment of engagement, a police officer may join no trade union, engage in no politics, affiliate to no political or trade union organisation. He must live where he is told and be available 24 hours a day. Certain officers too, are covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911, and that is entirely correct. It is a precondition of the policeman's employment that he should accept the restrictions imposed on his civil liberties that are necessary for him to do his job properly.
We are now asking in these amendments that another category of public servant at the highest level should accept as a condition of employment that some of the civil liberties that are available to the generality of people must be forgone. It is a proper and reasonable condition of service that those at the most senior levels in the Ministry of Defence, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, perhaps in GCHQ, and certainly in the Atomic Energy Authority, and any of the agencies that are to be engaged in space, especially where they collaborate with the Americans in the strategic defence initiative, should be


asked, as a condition of taking on their post, to put aside the civil liberties that the rest of us enjoy—the right not to have our communications intercepted when suspicion justifies interception.

Mr. Golding: Do the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhatt) include Privy Councillors? Do they include the Home Secretary in this category?

Mr. Griffiths: As drafted, my amendment does not. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, I have no inherent objection to that, but I should like to hear the arguments for such an inclusion.
The House is naturally concerned with striking the subtle and difficult balance between civil liberties and the proper preservation of the security of the democratic state. That balance will constantly concern us. It is the nature of political dialogue that one side of the House will tend to lean a little more one way and the other side a little more the other way. But not all civil liberties are the civil liberties of individuals. The civil liberty of the community must also be protected against subversion, aggression. terrorism, drugs and war. In the 21 years that I have been a Member, rarely has a Home Secretary had to pilot through the House the welter of legislation introduced by the present Home Secretary, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on it. In virtually all that legislation—the Data Protection Act 1984, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Prosecution of Offences Bill--we have been concerned at every point with the balance between the liberty of the individual and the proper protection of the rights and liberties of the community.
If the amendment is accepted and those who handle secret information no longer have absolute rights, the security services will be better able to ensure that the freedoms of the community — not to be terrorised, subverted, subjected to violence or the importation of drugs on a large scale and not to see the enemies of democracy triumph — are equally protected. The amendment is worth pursuing on that ground.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman persists in saying "the amendment". Is he aware that there are two amendments on the amendment paper in his name? Is he aware that we are debating both? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that amendment No. 3 refers to public servants who are entitled to read Government documents? Does that not relate to the Home Secretary? Is it not odd that we should discuss giving people the right to tap the Home Secretary's telephone without the Home Secretary's knowledge?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is quite properly a stickler for precision, and I do not complain about that. My name appears at the top of the amendment that is confined to officials. It would exclude from the protection of the clause those persons who are
officials of any Government department or of Her Majesty's Armed Forces or of any police force".
The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham appears at the top of the amendment dealing with
the communications of any public servant".
I acknowledge that there is a slight difference. I am speaking to my amendment, but, in its wisdom, the Chair has judged that we should debate both amendments together.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I regard the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmudnds (Mr. Griffiths) as odious. He was moving a repulsive amendment. It is intolerable for him, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), to weasel out of his responsibilities for amendment No. 3. Only two hon. Members have signed it. One is the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and the other is himself. The hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that, because the two amendments are linked, and he is speaking to the one on which his name comes top, he is dissociated from the other amendment, which, as I shall seek to point out, bears the interpretation to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
I described the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds as odious because it was deliberate sensation-mongering. He decided to drag Mr. Trestrail's name through the mud. Mr. Trestrail has suffered all that he should be required to suffer after the episode in which he was involved. It was a regrettable and unhappy episode. It is monstrous of the hon. Gentleman to drag that man's name through the mud when he is in no way involved with the subject matter of the two amendments, however the hon. Gentleman defines them. It is a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege to pillory an individual who has suffered a great deal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I made it crystal clear that Commander Trestrail was in no way involved in espionage or treachery. My point—it bears repeating as the -fight hon. Gentleman was signing his letters at the time and apparently did not listen— was that if there had been telephone interception of Commander Trestrail's conversations, his peculiar proclivities would undoubtedly have been picked up.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is therefore seeking to have people's communications intercepted on a basis far wider than has been proposed by almost anyone. The hon. Gentleman is proposing that someone should have his telephone or letters stopped not because he has committed or is likely to commit a crime but because he is a potential security risk on the basis of a social bias against some sexual activities. I regard that as utterly abominable. On that basis, almost anyone vulnerable in that way can have his telephone tapped or letters intercepted.
I made that point because it will not do in the House for us to seek sensational headlines by dragging along the names of all those spies about whom people like to write newspaper articles. It was disgraceful of the hon. Gentleman to do that. When we speak in the House, we should take account of the feelings of those whose names we mention. If there is no overriding public reason to do so, we should exhibit some fastidiousness. The hon. Gentleman's fastidiousness has now gone below zero.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Prime. That strikes me as nuts. It is bananas. Mr. Prime, or any serious spy, will not speak on the telephone. A non-serious spy will speak on the telephone to be intercepted in the way that the hon. Gentleman wants, but serious spies have other ways in which to communicate with one another.
All of us who have served in Government and who have travelled abroad on Government service have had our security briefings. That is why—

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has made personal animadversions. May I quote the words of the Security Commission dealing with the interception of communications? The commission said:
The criminal and the wrongdoer should not be allowed to use services"—
that refers to telephone services—
provided by the State for wrongful purposes quite unimpeded; and the police …and the Security Service ought not to be deprived of an effective weapon in their efforts to preserve and maintain order for the benefit of the community.
It is the Security Commission and not I that is saying that telephone interception could be effective in the case of traitors, including Prime. The right hon. Gentleman should do his homework before he makes such allegations.

Mr. Kaufman: The Security Commission says that they should not have the use of those media of communication. The hon. Gentleman should have tabled an amendment providing that all spies should have their telephones cut off.
The amendment is not just extraordinary objectionable; it is stupid. It is stupid when it comes from two hon. Members who have served in Government. If the hon. Gentlemen were new Back Benchers I could understand them—I should not sympathise; I should still deplore them — tabling such an amendment. Both hon. Gentlemen — in particular the hon. Member for Beckenham, who has served in the Northern Ireland Office — are aware, as I am, how enormously wide a circulation documents marked "secret" have. Junior civil servants see documents marked "secret" the whole time. Civil servants of higher executive officer level see documents marked "secret".
A document is not secret because it is marked "secret". A document is classified as "secret" because it is marked "secret". Anyone who has served in Government—I did for five years and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme did—knows that the most trivial documents are marked "secret", for reasons that I have never been able to understand.
The Home Secretary clearly told us that there are four classifications of documents. I think that there is probably a fifth, but not for the likes of me as I then was. The four categories are restricted, secret, top secret and commercially confidential.
My experience in Government was that a restricted document was one which, if one dropped it in the street and it was picked up by a reporter from the Daily Mail, he would throw away as being too boring. If someone dropped a document marked "secret" in the street and it was picked up by a reporter from The Sunday Times, it might be examined with some interest to see whether it would make a paragraph in an inside story.
Most Government documents are over-classified. That being so, the amendment would make it possible for the security services — without applying to the Home Secretary because no warrant needs to be issued—to intercept the communications of someone who has regular access to documents marked "secret". It would make it possible for most civil servants to have their telephones tapped without the Home Secretary knowing anything about it.
The Home Secretary and I have our differences, and we shall continue to have them, but I take seriously what he said. I know that he has said conscientiously that every time he is asked to sign a warrant for an interception of

communication he deals with it with enormous care. He does not deal with it, as we know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said in Committee, as a Minister in the Home Office. It is not a Home Office responsibility. It is not a responsibility that the Home Secretary can hand on to his hon. Friend the Minister of State or anyone else. It is his personal responsibility as Home Secretary. It is a private and important responsibility. It is a responsibility—whatever we may think of the outcome of any Home Secretary's decision—exercised with great restraint.
To insert in the Bill an amendment which would take away the Home Secretary's right to decide about warrants and allow the security services to tap a talephone or intercept letters on the basis merely of someone having access to secret documents could mean that tens of thousands of taps would take place without the Home Secretary knowing and using his judgment about them. That would immensely widen the scope for interception. It would also remove any ministerial responsibility from most telephone tapping. It would be a police state development with the most serious consequences. I am convinced that it would be as intolerable to this Government as it would be intolerable to a Government formed by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was completely wrong and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was absolutely right on the question whether Ministers could have their telephones tapped. Amendment No. 3 is poorly drafted as well as repulsive in content. It refers to "any public servant". Ministers are certainly public servants. They may not be civil servants but they are public servants. If they are not public servants, what on earth are they? If the amendment were to become part of an Act of Parliament, it would be open to MI5 to decide that any right hon. or hon. Member on the Conservative Front Bench could have his telephone tapped and his letters intercepted.
There is another danger of a contrary kind. That is the temptation for those who are responsible for classifying documents to classify them as secret in order to allow communications to be intercepted. The hon. Members who have put their names to this horrible amendment know very well that it is not Ministers who decide the classification. As a Minister of State, I was responsible for areas of great confidentiality, even though a good deal of the material was over-classified. The documents arrived on my desk classified.
This is another area in which Ministers, if they wished —to give them credit, I do not think they would—could classify documents as secret as a way round the other criteria in the Bill for allowing communications to be intercepted. It would also be possible for other public servants, other civil servants or senior civil servants to have documents classified as secret in order to have the communications of colleagues intercepted. Hon. Members may say that that is fantasy. I hope it is, but it is what the Act of Parliament would say if the amendments were made.
There is among some hon. Members a kind of spy mania or security mania. Of course we all want to deal with enemies of the state; of course we want to prevent important state secrets being spied upon by people and then communicated to external enemies of our society; of course we all want that, and it is essential to have an apparatus that brings it about. The Opposition have never


said or implied otherwise at any stage during the passage of the Bill. But to widen on an enormous scale, in massively outwardly radiating concentric circles, the number of people whose civil liberties are to be interfered with, because they might conceivably have access to documents which are over-classified in any case, is pushing things too far.
As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, and as he said previously when he made his statement on the White Paper, the power with which the Bill deals is an unattractive power. Governments say that they do not want it. It is a power that they should not want. It is a power that, if used at all, should be used to the minimum extent necessary consonant with the security of the state and the detection of serious crime—which the Government, we are glad to say, have been able to re-define as the Bill has proceeded.
7.45 pm
Let us remember what the Bill is about. It is not about having some kind of McCarthyite phobia, although the two hon. Members whose names appear on the amendments seem to believe that it is. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that it was the first statutory restriction on the interception of communications, and that is what it should be. We have serious differences across the Floor of the House as to whether the restriction is tight enough, but the amendments are not about the restriction of interception of communications. They are about widening the interception of communications to an extent which would cause delight if it were available in Moscow or any of the Eastern bloc countries, in South Africa, Chile, or any totalitarian country of any kind. We are utterly opposed to providing this Government with totalitarian powers, and we very much trust that the Government will tell the House that they do not want such powers.

Mr. Waddington: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman),who, from time to time, rather exaggerates. I do not believe for one moment that my hon. Friends can be accused of being odious or of deliberate sensation-mongering. We all know that the right hon. Member is a past master in overworked abuse and snide and silly remarks. He uttered a few last week. Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.
Clearly, the Government cannot accept the amendments. I appreciate my hon. Friends' concern about the menace of treachery. It behoves us all to recognise the dangers and to encourage continual vigilance, but the Bill is surely right not to single out any category of people as being either especially liable to interception or as being especially protected from it. Surely the object of the exercise must be to establish clearly in the statute the grounds on which interception can be authorised. If the criteria set by the Bill are right, and if the arrangements for operating the system are correct, no one should need special protection or be specially liable to have interception directed against him. Surely the question here is whether we have the criteria right. We believe that we have.
My hon. Friends are rightly concerned about treachery, and they see the amendments as a means of deterring it. The powers in the Bill allow all proper steps to be taken. Espionage, of course, is a crime and is therefore covered by clause 2(2). Treachery must be covered by national

security in clause 2(2)(a). The Bill does not provide for speculative interception for the purpose of deterring treachery, and two questions obviously arise. First, is it right that interception should be used in that speculative way? Secondly, if it is, is it likely in any event that it would have any practical effect?
With regard to the second question, a large number of Crown servants have access to secret material. Would it be a sensible use of resources to have their communications dipped into occasionally as a matter of routine? Obviously it could be only occasionally, because there are so many of them. The right hon. Gentleman is at least right on this. Any person seriously bent on treachery would know that because of his position he was in that category of persons liable to have their communications dipped into from time to time. If he were up to no good, he would not use the public system. Therefore, the effect of the amendments might be to make such a person even more difficult to catch, and would have exactly the opposite effect to that which presumably my hon. Friends are after.
There are two other relevant points. It is at least doubtful whether, under the European convent:on, speculative interception of a certain class of people would be deemed by the European Court to be
necessary in a democratic society.
I refer there to the article concerned. Secondly, we are all agreed that interception is distasteful. Therefore, we have set out to make it subject to special controls and safeguards.
That is what the legislation is about. The effect of the amendments would be to remove all safeguards from this type of interception—there would be no warrants from the Secretary of State and no tribunal. To do that would be to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. We could not possibly go down that road. As a Government, we are proud of the fact that we are introducing a measure which, while giving adequate powers to the Secretary of State in regard to telephone tapping, at the same time provides new safeguards for citizens.
I respect the reasons why the amendments have been tabled. I share the view of my hon. Friends on the need to take adequate steps to safeguard national security, but I think I have made it abundantly plain that the amendments run entirely counter to the central theme of the legislation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It was never the intention of my hon. Friend or myself to press the amendments to a Division. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) totally misconceived the purpose of our amendments. He was characteristically assassinatory in his ugly and repulsive remarks, which I reject. In view of what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and in view of the fact that I am sure that the Home Secretary has apprehended the point made by my hon. Friend and myself that we are looking for the utmost diligence by the Government to ensure that we do not have more such cases, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot do that, because he did not move the amendment.

Sir Philip Goodhart: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who moved the amendment, wishes to withdraw it. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

THE TRIBUNAL

Mr. Golding: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 27, leave out
'sent to or by him'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 6, line 31, at end insert
'or
(iii) an applicant specifies or describes to the Tribunal a person or address specified or described in the warrant;'.
No. 11, in page 6, line 36, at end insert
'or if an applicant specifies or describes to the Tribunal an address used as mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) above which is specified or described in the certificate.'.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 8.

Mr. Golding: It is with some trepidation, and before he goes, that I thank the Home Secretary for placing amendment No. 8 on the Amendment Paper. The last time I was accused by the Home Secretary, wrongly as the record shows, of adding to what he had said. Sadly, my blameless life has been littered with such unjust accusations. I seem to upset equally the Militant newspaper, Tribune, the New Statesman and now the Home Secretary when I adopt a reasonable, moderate, middle of the road approach.
However, I want to thank the Home Secretary once again, whether or not I upset him. Perhaps he has left the Chamber to avoid being upset by my thanks. I thank him because the employees of British Telecom and the Post Office have wished for many years to be able to report unauthorised tapping without risk of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. Following a little gentle persuasion, the Home Secretary has removed that threat.
To avoid adding to what the Home Secretary has said, I shall try to summarise the position. The Minister can indicate whether I have it right. As I understand it, if an employee of the Post Office or British Telecom believes that the law has been broken — this Bill will make unauthorised tapping an offence — he or she may complain to the police. A person who makes a complaint to the police about a breach of the law will not be liable to prosection under the Official Secrets Act. I want to get this clear so that we know the precise position when we come to the tribunal.
Under the Bill, I understand that information can be given to the commissioner because it is called for or volunteered, and the person who gives it need not fear prosecution under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. It is expected that the commissioner will express his requirement for information and documents in general terms. As the Home Secretary said:
Anyone in possession of information which he thinks is relevant to the commissioner, even if he has not been asked for it, would be authorised to disclose it, and therefore not be

guilty of an offence under section 2. If there were any doubt, the person need only tell the commissioner that he is in possession of relevant information or documents and the commissioner will ensure that his requirement is framed, or reframed, in terms which cover those circumstances. It is inconceivable that that would not be done.
Under the amendment that the Government have tabled, Post Office and BT employees required to give information to the tribunal could do so without fear of prosecution. As I understand it, that is the position. I do not think that I have added to what the Home Secretary said. If I have, I will readily give way to the Minister of State. That represents an important improvement for employees of British Telecom and the Post Office whom I represent as a union official.
Although I do not wish to detract from that, important questions remain. One relates to the security clearance of BT and Post Office staff. It is rumoured that the Government aim to introduce vetting even into the privatised BT. That is a matter of great concern to the National Communications Union, the new name for the enlarged Post Office Engineering Union.
Perhaps the Minister of State will answer my questions. Are the rumours about the extension of vetting true? How wide will the vetting be? In what circumstances will it take place? Following a point made earlier, will those who have been educated at public school and Cambridge be refused the right to climb the telegraph poles of BT, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) used to do? The union is concerned about civil liberties, and I express that concern today.
I am sceptical about the reliability and effectiveness of our security officers. I remember being lectured by a young man in 1964, when I was a Government Whip, on how to spot a Communist. Some of us had been putting the black spot on members of the Communist party long before that security officer had gone to school. He was ill-informed.
The sight of the Social Democratic party Member reminds me of my interrogation on going into the Department of Employment. What a farce it was. The security snoop asked me if I had ever belonged to a progressive organisation. I was able to tell him that there were thousands of people who would willingly testify to the fact that I had never had a progressive thought in my head. He persisted. He asked, "What about the 'troops out' movement?" I told him that the only person I knew who supported the "troops out" movement was Jim Wellbeloved and that the Prime Minister had just put him into the Ministry of Defence, at which the security officer sloped off. I presumed that he had gone to screen my right hon. Friend who was then Prime Minister. I have not been impressed so far by the screenings that I have had from the security forces.
8 pm
Our union is opposed to the vetting of British Telecom staff because of the implications for civil liberties. The theme of civil liberties brings me to tribunals. I find it difficult to understand why they have been given such a narrow remit, and I do not know whether they will work. The Home Secretary described the work of the tribunals in these terms:
It must decide whether official interception has taken place — a relatively simple matter— and whether it should have taken place in the sense of the Secretary of State acting reasonably in applying the criteria when he issues the warrant.
—[Official Report, 3 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1297–8.]
It would make sense for the tribunals to receive complaints about any interception, passing them to the police if they found them to be illegal and dealing with them themselves if they were authorised.
What is to happen if a complainant is being tapped illegally? Is his only recourse to the police? If the answer to that question is yes, that is undesirable. It would be far better for the tribunal to be able to receive a complaint of any interception and then for officers of the tribunal, having made internal inquiries, to have the power either to proceed with the examination themselves or to refer the matter to the police or the commissioner. I do not see why it is not possible to take complaints about illegal interception to the tribunal. I am not arguing that the tribunals should deal with them, but it is unreasonable that somebody somewhere, who fears that he is being intercepted, has to decide whether the tap is illegal or authorised.
This is the purpose of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). It should be possible for people other than the person whose phone calls or post are being intercepted to refer matters to a tribunal. I think in particular of employees of BT and the Post Office. For example, a tap might be placed on the phone of the convener of a big factory or, worse still, a tap might be placed on the phone of the political officer of the National Communications Union engineering group—to wit, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. What should the BT engineer assume? Let us say that the BT engineer, in either Newcastle-under-Lyme or Hanwell, comes across the tap on my phone. What should he do? How should he behave? Is he to conduct his own inquiries among his colleagues as to whether the tap is authorised or unauthorised?
When the engineer comes across the interception in the normal course of his duties, he immediately starts to ask questions of himself. To determine whether the tap is authorised or unauthorised — there are different procedures now for the two cases that I have mentioned —should the engineer go round his colleagues asking, "Has anybody seen a warrant? Who signed that warrant? When was that warrant produced? By whom was it produced?" Should he do that? It hardly seems desirable. In any case, I do not want engineers going round asking, "Is it official that Golding is tapped?", because that will bring only one response.
How will that person make a judgment? Our secret police may just want to know about wage claims and strike plans from the convener. If they tapped my phone, all that they would find out about would be racing tips—losing racing tips — and good fishing venues. It would be reasonable for the BT engineer to ask, "Is that why the phone is being tapped? Are those security officers hoping to find out who will win the National or the Derby? Is that reasonable?" On the other hand, he may decide that the security service and the Home Secretary have real fears that these pillars of the establishment are subversives. How is the BT engineer to know, on coming across the interception? One thing I know is that unless our members are absolutely certain that a tap is illegal, they will not go to the police. Even if they think that it is illegal, they will be reluctant because BT and Post Office employees do not want to be involved with the special branch in any shape or form.
I say that knowing that in Staffordshire the special branch has always treated me very well. Perhaps that is

because they have been informed incorrectly by the Young Socialists that I am an agent of the CIA. Certainly it has not been the experience of all my colleagues that they have had such good relations with the special branch as I have had. Many of my colleagues in the union would not wish to report to the police what they only suspected were illegal acts. They are much more likely to go to the commissioner, and far more likely still to be prepared to go to a local tribunal, particularly if they can be reassured in an off-the-record initial discussion of the confidentiality involved.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am following my hon. Friend's line of argument closely. He knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and I used to be employed by British Telecom, and we are familiar with many of the things that used to go on in security. I am interested to listen to my hon. Friend describe the series of options that he feels might be available to our colleagues in the industry. My initial reaction to what he has said is that I should have thought that at least there should some proper guidance to members of BT on the right course of action that they should take. If I were still working in BT and in my duties as a telecommunications engineer I had come across a tap of someone's phone, my instinctive reaction would be to report it to my first line supervisor. Is that what my hon. Friend is suggesting we should do, or should there he clearer lines of communication on how we should go about investigating whether that tap is illegal?

Mr. Golding: Perhaps I can explain to my hon. Friend that when he was more happily engaged — perhaps "engaged" is the wrong word—on his honeymoon, I was being reassured by the Home Secretary that our members could go to the commissioner. I shall refer to the point about the first line supervisor later. My advice to our members at the moment would be, "Do not go to the first line supervisor. If you have doubts, go immediately to the commissioner and, if the Government permit it, to the tribunal."
Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have noticed the caution of my hon. Friend. He said that he was employed by BT. Yes, he was. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon actually worked for the Post Office. Confidentiality is important.
My hon. Friend said that the Government should give an assurance that no internal disciplinary action will be taken against staff by management. In Committee, the Home Secretary was silent on this point. I hope that the Minister of State will not be silent upon it tonight. There is no point in the Home Secretary saying to British Telecom and Post Office employees, "In no way will you be subject to the Official Secrets Act if you give information to the commissioner or the tribunal," if there is any risk that, after providing such information, they can be made subject to internal disciplinary action. The Government must face that fact. There ought to be an absolutely explicit understanding that if employ ees respond in the way that the Home Secretary said they should, their action will not be the subject of internal disciplinary action by the management of BT and the Post Office.
The Government ought to respond to that point. Otherwise, what advice can be given to our members when they ask whether they should co-operate with the


commissioner or the tribunal? Of course we should be able to say to them that in no way will they suffer as a result of action taken under the Official Secrets Act or disciplinary action taken by management. However, if there is any risk that they will suffer from providing such information, we must advise them to be cautious. The Minister must recognise that this is a very important point.
The members of the National Communications Union are more likely to go to a local tribunal, and they should be allowed to do so directly. It is madness for the procedure to depend upon the victim suspecting that his mail is being intercepted or that his phone is being tapped, because the temptation will be for those who find the taps to tip off the victim. That does not make sense and it is undesirable, particularly if there are good reasons for the interception. What applies to communications with the commissioner should also apply to communications with the tribunal. There ought not to be the temptation to leak information to a journalist, to friends of the suspect, or to the suspect himself. It ought to be possible for the BT engineer or the Post Office employee to go direct to the tribunal.
That, of course, will widen the area for complaints. However, complaints are more likely to be soundly based if they are made by those inside rather than outside the business. As the Minister knows, one can quickly find out whether tapping is taking place. In any case, there is bound to be the problem of ill-founded complaints from very unstable people, but it is a price that has to be paid.
I hope that the Government will take these practical, not party, points very seriously. I have put the facts to the Minister as they have been put to me by honest people who are very worried about this matter. I do not expect an immediate response from the Government. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for tabling an amendment which will provide protection for our members before a tribunal. It adds to the protection that they already enjoy when giving evidence to the police and to the commissioner. The Government have gone a very long way towards allaying the fears and disquiet of BT and Post Office employees, but I ask them to go just a little further, because it would result in the tribunal system working more efficiently. It would allow BT engineers to go directly to the tribunal and give evidence, thus avoiding the nonsensical situation in which only the person whose post is being intercepted or whose telephone is being tapped has the right to complain.

Mr. Waddington: I was asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to answer a specific question about the vetting of BT staff. The Official Secrets Act applies as a matter of law to the Post Office and to British Telecom as a result of the Post Office Act 1969 and the Telecommunications Act 1984. I am advised that there have long been arrangements to make sure that state secrets in the hands of such organisations are not prejudiced—for example, defence telecommunications. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not for me to comment on present and future arrangements. I should emphasise that this is not new territory. BT may have been altered as a result of the 1984 Act, and we may now be putting into statutory form powers which have been exercised by successive Governments for a very long

time, but the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not arise from the introduction of the Bill. Far from it.
We are considering whether third parties should be able to complain to the tribunal about what they consider to be improperly authorised tapping. The tribunal is being set up to offer a means of redress. Essentially, it fulfils a role which in other circumstances would be carried out by the courts. Those who believe that they have been injured can complain to the tribunal, and if they have been injured they can obtain compensation. Generally speaking, however. a person cannot go to court and complain about what happened to somebody else without that "somebody else" being involved or consulted. We are setting up a tribunal to act in a quasi-judicial fashion and to grant a remedy to somebody who says, "I have been injured because I have been the victim of tapping which was wrongly authorised."
We must keep in the forefront of our minds what the tribunal is there for. I appreciate that other amendments have urged the Government to widen the powers of the tribunal, but the scheme in the Bill is clear. The tribunal exists to hear complaints by people who think that they may have been injured. It is not there to see that the whole interception system is working properly. That is the role of the commissioner. The tribunal is not there to prevent unlawful tapping. It is there to hear complaints by people who believe that they have been the victims of improperly authorised tapping. As article 13 of the convention states, the tribunal exists to provide "an effective remedy" for someone who has been the victim of improperly authorised tapping. Its purpose is not to carry out a general review of the Secretary of State's exercise of his functions. That is a matter for the commissioner.
The House will note, however, that the category of people who can complain to the tribunal is very wide. It includes not just those named in a warrant, but entirely innocent people whose communications have been unavoidably intercepted because they live or work at an address specified in a warrant. The hon. Gentleman will not need to be reminded that that arises from the definition of a relevant warrant or certificate under clause 7(9). therefore, although it may appear at first sight that only those who think that they have been named in a warrant may complain to the tribunal, the number of people entitled to complain is actually much greater.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised the important issue of BT staff who are worried about interceptions which they know to have taken place and believe to have been improperly authorised. I have no doubt that in such circumstances the people concerned would in the first instance take their worries to their senior officer. I have not had the privilege of working in the telecommunications industry, and the hon. Gentleman may say that that would not be the case, but, looking in from the outside, I should have thought that that would be the obvious first course. I would expect the person to tell his superior officer that something fishy was going on and that tapping was taking place when it should not be taking place. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was right when he said that his inclination would be to report to his first line superior in those circumstances.
Be that as it may, if for some reason, the person involved felt that that was not the right course but remained worried and wanted to do something about the situation, he could go to the commission. The hon.


Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme accurately described what should happen, exactly as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained it. If the person goes to the commissioner, but is worried that he is not protected by clause 8 unless he is required by the commissioner to provide the information, his course is plain. He simply asks the commissioner to require him to provide the information because he is nervous about his legal position if the commissioner does not do so. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said a few days ago, it is hard to believe that the commissioner, having been alerted to the fact that something might be going wrong with the system, would not do as he was asked by the member of BT staff who had come to see him.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I took part in the debate on this issue in Committee and suggested amendments on these lines. I do not understand why the Government rely on the assertion that the commissioner will no doubt require people to produce the information if he is asked to do so. Why cannot we provide a statutory defence enabling people to proffer the information in the first place?

Mr. Waddington: If my argument is correct, there is no need to do so. The circumstances described by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme would arise extremely rarely, and there is an easy way round the problem which the hon. Gentleman suggests might exist but which in my humble belief would very rarely exist. Frankly, I cannot believe that anyone so determined to take information to the commissioner and to ensure that something was done to right a wrong would be troubled for one moment about the remote possibility of being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for giving that information. It seems a nonsensical proposition, but we are saying that if there is any reality at all in such a fanciful suggestion the problem can he met.
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction on the other important point that he raised. He asked about the position of BT staff who are afraid to go to the commissioner in case they are then subjected to internal disciplinary proceedings. Again, looking in from outside, it seems to me inconceivable that that should happen. It would be a most extraordinary management who thought it right to take disciplinary proceedings against a member of staff who was so conscious of his duties to the public as to go to the commissioner and whose public spirit had been proved by the commissioner requiring him to provide the information. It seems fanciful to suggest that in those circumstances the person might be subjected to disciplinary action. Of course, the hon. Gentleman would not have raised the matter if he did not regard it as important, but now that it has been raised everyone can read about it in Hansard. Nevertheless, it cannot be for the Home Office to give directions to BT as to its disciplinary code, any more than any Home Secretary would have dreamt of doing so before the 1984 Act.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: That is precisely the point that I made in Committee. I agree that it is unlikely that the management would take disciplinary action. What concerns the House is that unless there is a general policy declaration by BT, employees may fear that they would be in breach of their contract of employment and may therefore be reluctant to go to the commissioner. That

being so, all that the Government can do is to provide them with a statutory defence. That is what I was aiming at in Committee.

Mr. Waddington: With respect, that has nothing to do with the point raised a short time ago, which was that there should be a statutory defence to protect a person against prosecution under the Official Secrets Act if he went to the commissioner. My hon. Friend is now talking about purely internal disciplinary proceedings, not criminal proceedings. What we are discussing is whether, after the passage of the Bill, BT should alter its disciplinary code to make it plain to its servants that they would not be disciplined internally if, in a public-spirited fashion, they went to the commissioner.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has done us a public service by raising the matter today. Everyone can now read about it. However, I doubt whether the matter could possibly be the responsibility of the Home Office. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to ensure that the matter is brought specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I shall gladly take pen and paper and write to my right hon. Friend.
It is all-important that one should not exaggerate the likelihood of BT staff wishing to intervene. It is right that these matters should be raised, but, on examination, the point is somewhat unrealistic. The task of BT staff is to execute a warrant. However, quite rightly, no member of staff will be told any of the reasons for the issue of the warrant. That being so, how could he reach an informed judgment on whether the tapping was right or wrong? The most that he can have is an instinctive suspicion that something must be wrong. He cannot have an informed suspicion. If the system works as it always has. the member of staff will not have the faintest idea whether or not the Home Secretary has authorised the interception correctly.
I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I do not take seriously what he has said. His contribution has been extremely valuable, and I am grateful to him for what he said about Government amendment No. 8, which I should now like to move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister need not formally move the amendment at this stage, but it is in order to discuss it with this group of amemdments.

Mr. Waddington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 8, is designed to bring the duty to disclose to the tribunal into line with the duty to disclose to the commissioner in clause 8(3). This is being done deliberately to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in Committee. We have written to the hon. Gentleman and are indebted to him for having raised the matter. I hope that the House will accept Government amendment No. 8, which is a useful addition to the Bill, but I cannot commend the Opposition amendments to the House.

Mr. McWilliam: First, I must again declare my interest. Secondly, I thank the Minister for meeting the points raised and for discussing amendment No. 8, which is valuable and helpful and will help to set at rest the minds of the staff of BT, Mercury, and any other public telephone systems.
Some of the Minister's comments on the Opposition amendments cause a problem. He says that there is no change in connection with vetting. I am not sure that that is so. I speak as someone who has worked for BT in defence and other installations. It was unusual in the past for formal vetting to take place. When Bob Mitchell was the chairman of the Fife branch of the Post Office Engineering Union, he was very upset when he was told that he could not go into Rosyth naval dockyard. However, as he was an avowed member of the Communist party at the time, that seemed reasonably fair and nobody became worked up about the matter. In general, vetting was no more stringent, and went no higher, than that.
The Minister also seems unaware how much information a qualified telephone engineer can pick up about an installation by looking at it. A qualified radio engineer can tell roughly what the function of an aerial is by looking at the size of it and noting whether or not it is steerable. That will tell him what frequency it operates on, and therefore roughly what it is used for. There is no point in vetting when such matters are plain to see. Many telecommunications engineers are qualified radio engineers.

Mr. Waddington: I have made no attempt to comment on the present or future arrangements for vetting. I said that the problem existed in the past and continues to exist. There will continue to be a need for vetting because the new BT will carry communications of the same type as the old. I do not have the faintest idea about what goes on in the case of vetting. My point was that the problem is no different from the problem which existed when the 1984 Act was passed.

Mr. Mc William: With respect, the problem is different. In the past, we were all established civil servants and subject to the Civil Service code of discipline. Today, BT engineers and other engineers are employees of a private company whose duty is to make profit for its shareholders. The investigation that preceded the issue of the certificates that made one an established civil servant no longer takes place. Circumstances have changed, and that change gives rise to some of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).
The Minister says that the tribunal offers a means of redress. That is fine. The problem is that the provisions in the Bill apply only to an individual or an address. A telephone is useless if there is no one on the other end of the line, and an interception picks up both ends of the line. It might be that the person who was under surveillance had no idea what was happening but that, because of actions taken on the basis of a telephone call, the person at the other end of the line became suspicious. He might suspect that it was not his line, but someone else's, that was being intercepted.
Years ago, an hon. Member with whom I used to share an office said to me, "John, I think my phone is tapped." I took the phone apart and spread the bits over his desk. There was nothing untoward there. I asked him why he thought that it was tapped. He said that every time he called the Palestine Liberation Organisation the security services found out about it. I was not at all surprised to learn that the PLO was tapped. The hon. Member, of course, was not.
That is an illustration of one of the problems raised by the Bill. Amendment No. 5 is designed to help someone making a call to a tapped telephone, who suspects than an interception may have taken place and who knows that the person concerned is not engaged in espionage or in any subversive or criminal activity. Such a person should have the right to go to the tribunal and report his belief that an illegal interception has taken place.
The Minister is right to say that a BT engineer will rarely come across a tap. The mainframe of a major telephone exchange is as long as the Chamber and roughly the width of two Benches. Nowadays, there are up to 40,000 numbers on such a frame, and the chances of a BT engineer seeing a tap on one of them is small, but such things happen.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: rose—

Mr. Waddington: That was not quite my point. I said that if an engineer came across a tap he would not have the faintest idea whether it had been properly authorised.

Mr. McWilliam: I shall answer the Minister after giving way to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).

Mr. Bruinvels: What does the engineer do when he finds that a telephone has been tapped?

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, because the regulations will have to change as a result of the Bill. When an engineer discovers a tap, he knows which number is being tapped because all telephone lines must be terminated on a number. Knowing the number, he can go to a card index and discover who is registered as having been allocated that number. That information will probably mean nothing to the engineer except in cases such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned. A BT engineer in the Newcastle-under-Lyme telephone exchange might see a tap, notice that the number is registered with my hon. Friend and knowing that my hon. Friend is not a member of the Communist party, a Fascist or damaging the economic interests of the country. By his own admission, my hon. Friend might be damaging the economic interests of a few bookmakers—

Mr. Golding: And my economic interests.

Mr. McWilliam: Indeed. The engineer might think that it is not reasonable for my hon. Friend to have his telephone tapped and therefore make a complaint to the tribunal. It is self-evident that any such complaint would be upheld. My hon. Friend might know nothing about the interception but he will have the satisfaction of knowing that the lads will check it out.
The Minister talked of warrants as though the chap who makes the interception is armed with a warrant signed by the Secretary of State in his grubby little hand. That is not the case. He is instructed to put an interception on a given number to a terminal on a terminal block. He does not know whether it is authorised. Present legislation provides that if a colleague in BT comes across an interception and is worried about it, he telephones someone who is designated as the security officer, who is usually employed by the traffic division of BT and has various duties, one of which is to ensure that warrants are all right.
As I said on Second Reading, interceptions are still put on correctly but without a warrant. There is a loophole which allows that. I hope that the Bill will stop that, but


there is a problem — how is the engineer to know whether the warrant has been issued, especially if he is putting an interception on somebody he knows is probably all right? The security services might know something adverse about that person. In such circumstances, the tribunal will investigate and find that the paper work is OK and nothing will happen. The person making the report will not be told whether the tap was authorised. It will remain secret. Nevertheless, the BT engineer would be happier for knowing that he has done his duty and that the matter has been checked.
We do not want taps put on without warrants and we want to ensure that any interception is made with a warrant. We also want to ensure that the aggrieved party is not considered to be just the person who has had the interception put on. There are two possible aggrieved parties. It is obvious that we cannot cater for an innocent person telephoning somebody who is not innocent and who has an interception. We should be prepared to go along with that if the person who made the call had redress. There is no redress under the Bill as drafted.

8.45 prm

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if somebody is suspected of a vast VAT fraud, of drug offences or of being a security risk and his telephone is tapped, anybody who telephones him and who most likely has no knowledge of any tap should be protected? There is a limit. The Bill introduces a remedy which we have not had hitherto. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should protect anyone who telephones someone under surveillance? That would not work.

Mr. McWilliam: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am not being clear. I am talking about the grievance of the person making a telephone call to another whose telephone has been tapped illegally. I am not talking about a telephone call to someone who has been tapped legally, and said that we are prepared to go along with that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify what he means by "legal" in this context? Does he mean a tap that is not in accordance with the warrant or for which there is no warrant at all?

Mr. McWilliam: I mean one that is not legal when the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Hogg: It can be several things. It can be an unlawful tap for which there has never been a warrant, it can be a warrant which should not have been issued or it can be a warrant the time of which has expired. There is a variety of combinations. I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. McWilliam: I mean the combinations that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I apologise for using loose language, but I am a telephone engineer not a barrister. I am trying to do my best. I have difficulty sometimes and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help and advice. I do not want what I am saying to be misunderstood; and the hon. Gentleman has made clear what I meant to say.
The Opposition's proposals are all square with complaints to the Press Council. In that context, a complainant does not have to be the aggrieved party. The Minister prayed in aid article 13 of the European convention, saying that the Bill was designed to protect the

victim of unauthorised tapping. Even on a legally tapped line, somebody on one end of a line will be the victim of just that. We accept that but do not accept that that person has no right to make a complaint. If the amendments are carried, such a complaint could be dealt with by the tribunal.
If the amendments are not carried, we shall have to rely on the person who believes the interception to have taken place illegally informing the person who is being intercepted. That will cause a problem which the Minister does not want to occur, because it will raise suspicions among people who are lawfully intercepted.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is not the mischief remedied because, under clause 1, which contains the substantive offence of tapping when there is no warrant, a person who has become aware of that fact, although the communication was neither
sent to or by him",
can, none the less, raise the matter with the police or the DPP? However, clause 7 is related exclusively to applications to the tribunal.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Unfortunately, a suspicion is that most unauthorised tapping is carried out by the police and not by the security services. Therefore, it is not much of a remedy to complain to the police about an unauthorised tapping if it has been carried out by the special branch. That problem should exercise our minds.
The tribunal has been set up as the independent body. We accept that. The amendment merely seeks to make certain that all possible evidence and complaints are properly investigated by that independent body. It will probably prove that the slander which I have just perpetrated on the police is quite untrue. I hope that is so, but we want that perk to be available to individuals; otherwise they could be aggrieved. If the amendment is carried, they will at least have some means of seeking redress if it is justified.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I wish to make a few comments on amendments Nos. 5 and 8. What the Minister has done in amendment No. 8 to schedule 1 is useful, in that he has met a point made by the Opposition as well as by myself in Committee. However, I do not think that it goes quite far enough.
What happens to a BT employee who believes that some improper act has taken place and wishes to make a complaint to the tribunal? Amendment No. 8 protects the BT employee if he is required to deliver up the documents or information, but it does not protect him if he wishes to volunteer the information. It is perfectly true that no sensible management would discipline an employee who referred information to the tribunal in good faith. But there is another point with which the Minister has not come to grips. Unless that fact is well known and generally accepted, the risk is that employees will never be ready to make a complaint in the first instance. We therefore require statutory protection to meet that difficulty.
I am very fond of notes from the Whips, and because I like to oblige the House on occasion, I shall bring my remarks to an end.

Mr. Golding: It is a wise Member who responds as quickly as that to a Government Whip. When in opposition, one does not have to respond quite as quickly.
Dozens of Conservative Members are pouring into the Chamber. They have come either to hear my speech or to vote. I shall not disappoint them on either count—we shall vote. However, before doing so, I should be delighted if the Minister were to write to his colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry and say that, as this is a serious problem, could he not have a chat to the management of BT and to the management of the Post Office and arrive at a sensible understanding that employees acting responsibly will not be subject to disciplinary procedures.
I do not wish to exaggerate the size of the problem in BT. I merely wish to make absolutely sure that, in the unlikely event of finding something wrong, the employees will have confidence that there is a proper procedure for pursuing their concerns.
We shall vote on the amendment because I do not think that the Minister yet understands the deficiencies in the Bill. BT and Post Office staff can go to the commissioner. The commissioner can report and tell the Prime Minister that not all in the world is right, but he has no specific powers. That is the difference between the commissioner and the tribunal.
The tribunal has a direct power. It will investigate whether there is a warrant and whether it is in order. If it determines that there has been an infringement, it can
give notice to the applicant stating that conclusion,
and
make a report of their findings to the Prime Minister; and—
this is the important distinction from the commissioner—
if they think fit, make an order under subsection (5)".
It can
quash the relevant warrant or the relevant certificate",
and
direct the destruction of copies of the intercepted material or, as the case may be, so much of it as is certified by the relevant certificate".
It could be that irrelevant information could be ordered to be destroyed. The powers of the tribunal are very different from the powers of the commissioner. It ought to be possible for an employee to lay the same sort of information before the tribunal as he is permitted to lay before the commissioner. In one case the tribunal can act to stop the offence taking place, whereas the commissioner can draw general conclusions and report to the Prime Minister. The Bill does not deal with what the Prime Minister should do.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in voting for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 218.

Division No. 185]
[8·59 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Coleman, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cowans, Harry


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Craigen, J. M.


Caborn, Richard
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'!)


Campbell, Ian
Dewar, Donald





Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Park, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Redmond, M.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gould, Bryan
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stott, Roger


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Tinn, James


John, Brynmor
Torney, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
White, James


Lamond, James
Wilson, Gordon


Leadbitter, Ted
Winnick, David


Leighton, Ronald



Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. John Mc William and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Robin Corbett.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, John


Alton, David
Corrie, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashdown, Paddy
Critchley, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Den


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, Robert


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Benyon, William
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fallon, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Farr, Sir John


Blackburn, John
Favell, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher, Alexander


Bottomley, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Alastair


Budgen, Nick
Gorst, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan






Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hawksley, Warren
Murphy, Christopher


Hayes, J.
Needham, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Hirst, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Parris, Matthew


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Howard, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Penhaligon, David


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Porter, Barry


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powley, John


Hunter, Andrew
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Raffan, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kennedy, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rost, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawler, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Spence, John


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lyell, Nicholas
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Thornton, Malcolm


MacGregor, John
Trippier, David


Maclean, David John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclennan, Robert
Viggers, Peter


McQuarrie, Albert.
Waddington, David


Madel, David
Walden, George


Malins, Humfrey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Maples, John
Wallace, James


Marlow, Antony
Walters, Dennis


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Watson, John


Mates, Michael
Watts, John


Mather, Carol
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Maude, Hon Francis
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wheeler, John


Meadowcroft, Michael
Whitfield, John


Merchant, Piers
Wolfson, Mark


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Miscampbell, Norman



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Moore, John
Mr. John Major.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

THE TRIBUNAL

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 11, line 39, after 'Crown', insert
'or engaged in the business of the Post Office or in the running of a public telecommunication system'.—[Mr. Brawn.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill fulfils the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Lord President gave in another place just over a year ago, that the Government would bring forward legislation on interception in the present Session. As we come to the end of our consideration of the Bill, it is worth looking again for a moment at what it is and is not designed to achieve. These broad objectives have understandably, perhaps almost inevitably, been rather lost sight of during the course of detailed examination of the individual provisions.
The Bill is comprehensive in its application to the interception of communications. It demonstrates the wisdom of the view that previous attempts to incorporate provisions in legislation dealing with other matters were bound to be unsatisfactory. Interception is a definable matter capable of being dealt with in one measure, and capable of being dealt with now. The enactment of this Bill would ensure that the authorisation of interception will be on a basis expressly approved by Parliament. I believe that that is a fundamentally important change and one that will be widely welcomed.
Throughout the preparation and passage of this Bill, the Government have been guided by one particularly important principle—that they are not seeking and not taking wider powers for authorised interception than have been practised by Governments of both parties over a long period. That is not perhaps a claim that I would often expect to be able to make for legislation as a Minister, but with interception it is of crucial importance. The Government want only to place on a statutory basis those things which they and their predecessors have judged essential to the interests of fighting crime and preserving the country's vital interests. The Bill does this, and no more than this.
These first two objectives involve the breaking of no new ground. The third does, and it is just the opposite. The Bill introduces significant additional safeguards. I urge the House not to underestimate either their importance or their novelty. In a number of respects the most fundamental is the provision in the Bill least discussed during recent weeks—the creation of the new offence of unlawful interception. I believe that I can claim that there has been universal acceptance of the offence provision and what it seeks to achieve. Such criticism as has been voiced was at the margins and the Government have sought to respond positively to it.
Clause 1 is, however, more than just the creation of another criminal offence. It is essential that it is seen, as it features in the Bill, alongside the arrangements for authorised interception. The point about the offence—I welcome this opportunity of publicly stressing and underlining this— is that it means that anybody who oversteps the mark, whoever he may be, whoever he works for, or whatever his purpose or motive, runs the risk of severe penalties. It is essential that those in official positions should be seen here, as in other spheres of life, to be subject to the same constraints as everybody else.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is now accepting that, because of the compensation provisions in clause 2, compensation should be payable where the interception has been made improperly, and the


tribunal has power to direct that. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving an aggrieved person the right to claim compensation where an offence has been committed under clause 1?

Mr. Brittan: Wholly different considerations arise there. Clause 1 covers unauthorised interception, which may be by anybody, not necessarily by anybody who is in any sense an agent of the state. Therefore, compensation for criminal offences cannot be treated in quite the same way as compensation for an interception that has been officially carried out by an agency of the state under the power given by a Secretary of State, but held by the tribunal wrongly to have been so given.
The other safeguards in the Bill have been discussed more thoroughly. Again, I can claim that they have not at heart been challenged. They mean that for the first time the individual can cause the decision of the Secretary of State to be reviewed and, if appropriate, overturned. That is no mean thing. Those who hitherto have had the responsibility of signing warrants have not been subject to that check and the power of review in that way. The personal decision of a Minister can in this way be reviewed by an independent body at the prompting of a private person, without legal representation or lengthy or expensive proceedings, simply in response to a brief application that he may make.
In the same way, the whole system of authorised interception, including all the administrative arrangements which necessarily underpin it, are subject to the continuing review of the commissioner. He will be a person of proven independence, stature and capacity, with free access wherever he wishes to go in pursuit of his duties. The importance of that should not be underestimated either. Continuing inspection of that kind will ensure that everybody concerned observes the highest standards, and, through the powers conferred upon him, nothing can be hidden from the commissioner.
During proceedings in the House, the Government have agreed to a number of significant changes to the Bill. Reading some of the comments on them, I cannot help feeling that in politics it is not possible to get anything right. If a Minister does not agree to changes, he is being obstinate; if he agrees to changes, he is "forced to make concessions." However, the important thing is to get it right rather than to worry about any comments that may be made, and I had no qualms about readily agreeing to amendments suggested from a number of quarters, including the official Opposition. I hope that the amendments that have been made are accepted as being helpful. Without exception they are designed to clarify the Bill and to underscore the objectives to which I have just referred—that new powers are not being sought and that the protection offered by the legislation is real and should be seen by people at large to be real.
The Bill is designed to ensure that people can have confidence in the operation and supervision of the system of authorised interception, and the Government have approached the proceedings throughout with an open mind on any practicable changes which might enhance that confidence. We shall continue to adopt that approach during the forthcoming stages of the Bill's passage elsewhere.
It is not my wish to detain the House longer. The Bill has been well examined. It will be examined further in another place. Discussion of the Bill — as distinct perhaps from the discussion of certain other extraneous matters on which attention was focused last month—has been measured and has recognised the need for carefully framed legislation. I trust and believe that that spirit will continue in the coming weeks. It is in that expectation that I commend the Bill's Third Reading to the House.

Mr. Kaufman: The Bill's passage has been marked by a number of changes. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for acknowledging the part that the Opposition played in the discussions that brought about a number of concessions. Some of the changes are of particular importance. The Government have announced that they intend to legislate on the Law Commission's recommendation that there should be a civil remedy for the use or disclosure of information obtained by improper means, including bugging devices. The Home Secretary has issued guidance to the police on the new offence of unauthorised interception of communications.
We are gratified that the Government have moved—although they said previously that it was not their intention to do so—on the removal of the ability of a live-in landlord to consent to the interception of the communications of his tenants. The Government have tightened the definition of the "serious crime" criterion for interception, along the lines of the definition in the 1980 White Paper. We asked for that change during Second Reading. There is a tighter definition of the circumstances in which a civil servant may urgently authorise or modify a warrant. This will be done only on the express authority of the Home Secretary. Although this will not be done precisely in the way that we requested, it is, nevertheless, a considerable improvement.
The most important single change between Second Reading and Third Reading is in the currency of warrants. This will be as stated in the White Paper, and not as set out in the Bill. The period of first issue of warrants has been reduced from six months to two months.
The amendment on judicial review has acceptably clarified what was not clear on Second Reading, although the Home Secretary assured the House that it was. The Government amendment makes it clear that the tribunal will be able to look at the merits of the decisions by the Secretary of State to authorise warrants for interception.
In response to the shrewd and persistent applications by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), the Government have made a concession in relation to the protection of disclosures by Post Office and telecommunications employees and others to the commissioner and to the tribunal.
Those are all important and worthwhile changes, and the Opposition are glad to have played their part in bringing them about. There is no doubt that they improve the Bill, but it still requires a great deal of further improvement.
We still have major misgivings about some parts of the legislation, including the Government's failure, or refusal, to import into the Bill the administrative safeguards of the 1981 White Paper. We have to depend upon the tribunal or the commissioner to ensure that Ministers comply with those safeguards. The tribunal or the commissioner can be


guided only by the criteria set out in the legislation and not by any other criteria—even though the Home Secretary has put them forward as criteria which govern him.
There is a risk that the Bill will accidentally destroy the safeguards set out in the 1980 White Paper. They have not been incorporated into the Bill. These include the matters about which we have misgivings and in respect of which we have sought, without result, to improve the Bill. They are both in clause 2(2). The first is the criterion of national security, which we insist is far too wide, and the second is the criterion of economic well-being, which, if there is any place for it in the legislation, is again too wide and imprecise.
In addition, the Government have given the citizens inadequate protection against unauthorised interception by excluding it from the remit of the tribunal and the commissioner. For unauthorised interception, the citizen depends completely on the ability of the police to investigate and the Director of Public Prosecutions' willingness to prosecute. We do not regard that as satisfactory.
There are other matters about which we know more because of admissions made by Ministers during the Bill's passage. One is that the individual will not be able to seek an injunction against unauthorised tapping. The Minister of State made that clear. Secondly, the Minister of State said that the tribunal is necessary because the rules of natural justice cannot be applied to complaints about interception.
One reason why the Government have resisted what we sought—a right of appeal from the tribunal—is that the criterion of natural justice is excluded. The tribunal is not obliged to report evidence of unauthorised interception to the police, although the Government assume that it will follow its duty as a citizen.
The tribunal's other major shortcoming is that it does not seem, from the debates and an examination of the Bill, that it will be of any use to the citizen who wants a remedy against interception, because the Government have insisted over an over again that it is not there to deal with unauthorised interception. For that, the citizen has to go to the police. Authorised interception is matched against the Secretary of State's issuing of a warrant. That depends upon, and is governed by, criteria which, as we have said, are far too wide.
The Home Secretary alluded in a somewhat discursive fashion to the circumstances which existed when the Bill was introduced and which led to two delays in its being given a Second Reading. I am referring to the climate in which the Bill was introduced, and which, on a fairly placid evening on Third Reading, the House might tend to forget but should not be allowed to do so. Anxiety and misgivings were felt by a wide spectrum of opinion, from the Conservative through to the Left-wing press, about the Cathy Massiter allegations in the television programme which was first banned from Channel 4 by the IBA and then permitted to be shown. A wide spectrum of opinion was worried about interceptions which were not authorised by the Home Secretary, as well as about allegations of the way in which the Home Secretary might have authorised interceptions, and also about the way in which, for example, the Secretary of State for Defence might have misused the fruits of interception. That climate may be a little less heated now, but it still exists, as do the misgivings.
The misgivings must have been heightened by the surruptitious publication, immediately before Easter, of the terms of reference of the three advisers, which accompanied a written answer in this House. That was information which the House was able to know about and to raise only because of information supplied, not to this House, but to journalists, by the Prime Minister's press secretary, the notorious Mr. Ingham, an ex-Labour candidate for Leeds city council. Fortunately, the electors of that ward showed good sense at the time.

Mr. Brittan: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware of the fact that a written answer was given, and that therefore the reference to the Prime Minister's press secretary is whollyinappropriate?

Mr. Kaufman: No reference to the Prime Minister's press secretary is wholly inappropriate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that there was a planted question, with an answer which did not provide the terms of reference. It was only the fact that a number of journalists at No. 10 Downing street applied for and were given the information, and were then good enough to let Members of Parliament see it, that enabled us to see it in time. [Interruption.] There is no point in the Minister of State getting into a great fuss about it. These are the facts, and are known to be facts. That is one of the reasons why a great deal of the comment could not be made until after Easter. But what emerges—this is extraordinarily important—is that—

Mr. Brittan: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall readily give way to the Home Secretary, but I wish first to complete this passage. In the Bill we have been dealing with the question of subversion. Earlier this evening, when we were seeking to redefine subversion, we emphasised that it was a subjective definition based upon the hazy Lord Harris definition of 10 years ago. That criterion, which can govern the decision of the Home Secretary to issue a warrant, is now affected by paragraph 1 of the terms of reference of the three advisers, where the words are:
a subversive group, acknowledged as such by the Minister". That means that it is the Minister who can define a subversive group to suit his own personal criteria.
The whole paranoia about subversion which has arisen under this Government in recent months is now being imported into definitions which will govern criteria which will permit the interception of communications underthis legislation.

Mr. Brittan: Leaving aside the fact that the change announced in thewritten answer to which I have referred is on the lines of what was recommended by the Security Commission— a fact which the right hon. Gentleman conveniently ignores—I want to deal in this intervention with the specific misstatement by the right hon. Gentleman. He gave a picture of a bare written answer and the information about the terms of reference having to be winkled out of the Prime Minister's press secretary by assidious journalists. However, the Prime Minister's answer said:
In the light of the Security Commission's report following its review of security procedures and practices in the public service… the terms of reference of the three advisers and the statements of procedure have been revised. I am arranging to have copies placed in the Library of the House."—[Official Report, 3 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 621.]


That does not sound like the clandestine operation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem now to be straying somewhat from the contents of the Bill, and it is the contents of the Bill that are in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Kaufman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you will permit me, before moving on I shall respond very briefly to what the Home Secretary said. To give a written answer with a reference to something that can be obtained in the Library, but which is not available to hon. Members who read the answer, is not the same as making the information plainly and clearly available simultaneously with the answer to the House of Commons.
We all know what happened. The answer was put out by the Prime Minister just before she left for her weird tour. She hoped that it would be submerged by the Easter press, because, of course, there are no newspapers on Good Friday — something well known to the Prime Minister through her press secretary. The Home Secretary's answer will not do. We know that he is a craven apologist for the Prime Minister, but that answer does not go far enough.
The Home Secretary has said that it will be all right, because the Securitry Commission has proposed something. The Security Commission does not sit at the top of Mount Sinai. We do not have to accept what it says as being like the Ten Commandments. The Prime Minister can decide for herself, if she wishes to do so.
The terms of reference, which are so germane to the Bill which the House will be asked to pass within a few minutes, are far wider than anything that has existed previously. The terms of reference have widened the definition of a public servant. They include a list, which did not exist before, of people who are liable to be sacked as security risks. The list covers people in the public service, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, including British Nuclear Fuels plc and United Kingdom employees of URENCO Ltd., the Civil Aviation Authority, British Telecom—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must ask him to set a good example to the House by returning the Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: I am talking about criteria which will govern the definition of subversion and decide whether a warrant can be issued under clause 2(2)(a). That is being widened by the document which the Government did not exactly publish but which was made available to the Opposition through the assistance of certain journalists of good will.
The Bill goes far too wide. In addition, parliamentary accountability will consist simply of a report to the House following the report by the commissioner. Proper accountability through the House—that is accountability of the commissioner appointed by the House to a Select Committee of the House—does not exist.
There are two areas of very wide concern. One relates to the criteria which make the Bill a telephone tappers' charter, as I said on Second Reading. The other is the total failure of the Government to take the opportunity of this legislation at long last to bring the security services under

some form of parliamentary accountability when the fear has been throughout that elements in the security services are operating in a way not known to the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary may well have made a quickie investigation, but that does not begin to meet the misgivings of many people outside the House as well as many Members inside the House. Although we have secured some improvements in the Bill during its passage, it is for those reasons that we regard the Bill as so unsatisfactory that we shall vote against it tonight.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise in the Third Reading debate to make a few short comments on the Bill—

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: They may well be short.

Mr. Hogg: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. They may be short, but the example of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not encouraging. He appears to be anxious to lose the Opposition's prayer, perhaps because the prayer is largely without merit so he does not want it to be discussed. However, that is by the way.
The Bill is a very important and useful step forward, in that it enshrines in statute practices which had previously not been statutory. It sets out in statutory form the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued. It defines the practice in statutory form, and, for the first time, it provides an effective review system. All those things represent a great step forward, and I am sorry that the Opposition are so churlish as to say that they will vote against the Bill.
Having said that, I believe that there are at least four respects in which the Bill can be improved. The first is the point that I made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I do not see why, where a person has had his phone or mail intercepted unlawfully, and thus there is an offence under clause 1, he should not have the right to claim compensation. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that matter with a view to making possible changes in another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is now talking about what he would like to see in the Bill. What he must now discuss is the contents of the Bill itself.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The second specific point is the definition in clause 2, which sets out in statutory form the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued. The Home Secretary has sought to define the circumstances that justify it — national security and so on. It is a pity that he has not felt able to include a slightly more precise statutory definition of the circumstances in which the warrant may be issued. I should like to have seen that done.
The third point relates to the power of the tribunal. I share with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) a certain amount of disappointment about that. When a person believes that there has been an interception, he has a right to go to the tribunal to make a complaint. The tribunal's powers are limited by clause 7. In particular, the tribunal does not have the power to say that there has been an offence under clause 1. I regret that omission. I hope that the matter will be looked at again in another place.
My final point relates to clause 9. It is the point about which I feel the greatest concern. Clause 9 provides that under no circumstances may evidence be adduced in a court or tribunal which shows that an offence under clause 1 has been committed or, indeed, shows that there has been an offence under clause 2. As a general proposition, I bitterly oppose any legislation which prevents people from adducing relevant evidence in court. That seems to be objectionable in principle. It is an extension of the law and has never been the case before. Until the Bill becomes an Act, people can adduce evidence to show that warrants have been issued. They are able to show that tapping has taken place. However, for the first time, under clause 9 that will no longer be possible. I am against that in principle.
I am prepared to accept that there may be a case for saying that the presumptions are against the adducing of such evidence, but I believe that there should be a residual power in either the court or the tribunal to cause such evidence to be admitted in exceptional circumstances. I deeply regret that the Minister of State, when I raised this matter in amendments two weeks ago, could not meet me on any point that I put to him. I very much hope that when the Bill goes to another place clause 9 is scrutinised with the greatest of care. I should be pleased if amendments came back to this place which would alter the nature of clause 9.
However, this is an important step forward. I do not want to derogate from it. The Bill can be improved. Notwithstanding that, it is a very welcome development.

Mr. Maclennan: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and speak extremely briefly. He passionately expressed his opposition to clause 9—opposition which, as he knows, I wholly share. I consider that to be a sufficient reason in itself for voting against the Third Reading of the Bill. I and my hon. Friends in the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party will vote against it for that and for other reasons.
It was surprising that when the Home Secretary introduced the debate he did not refer once to the real provenance of the Bill—the finding of the European Court of Human Rights that the British system of telephone tapping is outside the law, that we are therefore in breach of the European convention on human rights and that because our system is based upon administrative rules, not upon the law of the land, something has to be done about it.
There is no certainty that the passing of the Bill will necessarily bring us wholly within the four corners of the convention. It has to be admitted that the necessary requirements were not spelt out in the Malone case, which led to the adverse ruling against this country. However, in the Klass case against the Federal Republic of Germany, control over the exercise of Executive discretion was considered in some detail. Although I acknowledge that the Bill marks a step forward, it does not go nearly so far as the legislation in the Federal Republic and is most notably defective in the provision that it makes for paliamentary scrutiny of what is happening.
I accept that the Bill contains a provision for an annual report to be made to Parliament. However, I do not believe that it amounts to real and effective control. I opposed the concept of a single commissioner of high judicial office and proposed instead that this review function ought to be

conducted by senior Privy Councillors, some of whom have experience of exercising discretion and who have a tie with Parliament. I believe that that would have been a better procedure. I hope that another place will consider that point. For those reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What has come out of our debates is general agreement that interception is necessary in the interests of freedom and security. It is a step forward that all parties have said that clearly. The Bill legitimates the interception of communications. Therefore, I very much welcome it. It provides, for the first time, a legislative sanction. The House is determining how this practice should henceforth be applied. Previously, it has been a matter of prerogative and practice. Now, it is a matter of statute. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on that achievement.
My right hon. and learned Friend has also introduced two novel and important safeguards: first, the commissioner; and, secondly, the ability of the citizen to have the Home Secretary's decision overturned and compensation provided. That is an extension of civil liberty.
My last point is that during our discussions nothing has seemed to me to be more peculiar than the attitude adopted by the Opposition Front Bench. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who spoke for the Opposition, felt so strongly about the iniquities of telephone tapping without the proper safeguards, the review procedures of a Select Committee and the thousand and one additional amendments to which he referred this evening, why on earth, when he was in government, did he do nothing about it? That is the essential difference between the Opposition and this Government. When the opportunity presented itself, this Government provided an extension of civil liberties and parliamentary sanction for the Bill. The Opposition have done nothing but complain, even though they did nothing about it when in office. Now they have the humbug to complain when the Government are putting this Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I shall address myself briefly to the content of the Bill. How will it affect, for instance, my constituent Carol Brickley, who, according to this month's Monochrome, as a prominent activist of the City Anti-Apartheid group had her telephone tapped and transcripts passed to the South African embassy? This is allegedly based on information from an MI5 officer on the lines of the Cathy Massiter revelations.
First, did the Home Secretary authorise that tap and, if so, did he know that the information was to be passed to a foreign embassy? If not, will he inquire into the matter? Finally, does my constituent have redress under the Bill by applying to the commissioner or the tribunal—and if not, why not?

Mr. Norris: It would be churlish for anyone on either side of the House not to welcome the Bill, for at least three good reasons.
First, much to the surprise of Members on both sides, an offence of unlawful interception is being created for the first time. It is extraordinary how many members of the


public are amazed and appalled that no such offence now exists and that this important statutory safeguard for the public is being provided for the first time.
Secondly, having introduced a ten-minute Bill towards the end of last Session, on the Law Commission's recommendations on breach of confidence, I was especially pleased at the introduction of a civil remedy as a vital adjunct to the criminal provisions in the Bill.
Thirdly, and especially significant in the light of the "20/20 Vision" film, which coloured earlier proceedings on the Bill to a large extent, anyone who claims to have been unlawfully subject to interception in that way will now be entitled to have a commissioner investigate the case and a tribunal decide that the tapping was completely unlawful. That is a very significant advance.
For those three individually significant and collectively extremely important reasons, it would be churlish indeed not to welcome the Bill.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Norris: Despite my hon. Friend's alacrity in springing to his feet, I must detain the House a little longer, as I have two major reservations about the Bill.
First, clause 1 still clings to an unnecessarily restrictive definition of interception. After all our deliberations on the Bill, we are left with the ludicrous situation in which telephone tapping and interception of mail are covered, but surveillance by any other means is not covered. Far be it from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stray into matters not covered by the Bill. One is obliged to point out, however, that the Bill covers precious little and to suggest that it is a safeguard against the whole process of unlawful surreptitious surveillance is inaccurate so long as the Bill assumes that such surveillance is carried out only through telephone tapping or the interception of mail.
Secondly, the procedure outlined in clause 2, whereby warrants for interception will be issued by the Home Secretary, is still deeply unsatisfactory because it continues the fundamental error of failing to distinguish between the judiciary and the Executive. Other European Governments have found no difficulty in making that distinction—not, as is sometimes asserted, because their judicial systems are different, because their judges have a different role or because their courts undertake different functions. There are precedents in this country for search warrants, for instance, to be issued on a judicial basis. The real answer, I suspect, is that where there is a will to achieve such a system a way can be found, but it is clear that there was no such will in the content of the Bill.
While we are considering the limitations of the power of the tribunal and the commissioner, I must point out to my hon. Friends — I address my hon. Friends in particular because this is not a party political issue and the freedoms being protected in the Bill are far too important to be considered on a party political basis—that clauses 7 and 8 set out the procedure by which the tribunal and the commissioner will work.
Hon. Members may be interested to recall that when Lord Bridge was asked to review the way in which authoritisatons had been issued in the past, after various recent allegations in the press, he was able to complete the onerous task in a weekend. That shows how restrictive are the terms for the tribunal and the commissioner. They can only ensure that the warrant has been properly applied for

and that the criterial established under the legislation are met. They are not concerned with the broader principles of natural justice. Such considerations are beyond the scope of this limited Bill.
There are many important new safeguards in the Bill which we should all welcome. I shall have no difficulty at all in supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight. There is much in the Bill to welcome. However, the measure will not go far enough to dispel the public disquiet and concern aroused not only by the "20/20 Vision" film but by many other incidents over the years. The Bill will do something, but a great deal remains to be done, and I must add to the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) the hope that in another place the Bill will be given the teeth that will enable it genuinely to dispel the public disquiet that has arisen.

Mr. Cohen: According to a report that I have read, the secret services have a word identification machine which was used during the miners' strike. Unfortunately, someone decided to put on a word picket when the miners' phones were being tapped. The result was an unexpected mass picket on the machine, and it became overloaded. That is one example of abuse.
Many other abuses have been mentioned in the House during debates on the Bill and at other times. The Minister never comments on them. The answer is always that the matter is, of its nature, secret. That is a great excuse for a cover-up of incompetence, negligence or even political corruption on the part of the Minister, politicians or administrators.
There have been far too many abuses. We have heard about the tapping of the phones of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and of trade unionists. The definition of subversion is too wide. It enables tapping, and other unsavoury activities that abuse civil liberties, to take place.
The Bill gives no definition of the national interest. The Minister says that the concept of national interest can be used in a variety of contexts. On Second Reading, he said that the concept was not unnecessarily imprecise. What is necessary about imprecision in a matter as important as the invasion of privacy and civil liberties? The judge in the Ponting case raised a serious issue when he equated the national interest with whatever the Government of the day wanted to do. That was dangerously wrong, as the jury thought.
The Home Secretary has said that even lawful activity can be regarded as subversive and against the national interest and that perfectly lawful tactics could be used to subvert our democratic system of government. That must be wrong. The definitions are so wide that the security service or Ministers can get away with virtually anything.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) hit the right note in Committee when he said that there is only one legitimate criterion for listening to or intercepting a person's telephone call—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Interception of Communications Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Mr. Cohen: —that a crime is being, is about to be or is thought likely to be about to be committed. Once we


depart from what people do and include what they think, which is what subversion is all about, we are getting away from a basic principle on which British justice is supposed to be founded.
With warrants, the signature of one is an excuse for tapping perhaps hundreds or even thousands of telephones. With the extension to computer data, it is possible to get perhaps 50,000 personal records as well. The Minister said today that warrants are signed by a non-political Director General or a non-political Secretary of State. Was the signing of Mr. Cox's warrant non-political? Mr. Cox, the vice-chairman of CND, had his telephone tapped. If the Secretary of State is non-political, what is he doing duplicating the Director General's job? In those circumstances, he is effectively no more than a rubber stamp.
The extension of tapping to computer data, which the Bill allows, will permit a trawl of personal data. My amendment, which would have required the destruction of excess material, was not selected. In Committee, the Minister said that intercepted material will be limited to the minimum necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss amendments that were not selected.

Mr. Cohen: I am not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill provides for a massive extension of tapping to computer data. It should be explicit and ensure that excess material is destroyed rather than set up in files on people, which is the big brother technique.
The tribunal's powers are severely limited and many people will be denied the opportunity to right wrongs that have been done to them. There will be no proper parliamentary accountability. The idea of there being a Select Committee as an overseer has been rejected by the House. A secret budget of more than £1 billion a year has been reported, and the principle of no taxation without representation has been negated.
The abuses will go on. Policy will be changed and widened without proper debate, perhaps without the knowledge of the House, and the Bill will do nothing to stop that.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall not detain the House. This Third Reading is of immense importance to the country. There can be no user of a telephone who has not at some time felt, by the hum on the line, a crackle, a voltage drop or an apologetic interruption, that his line is being intercepted. How many of us say on the telephone, "We must not say too much. The telephone is not the best medium on which to discuss such things."
When constituents ask us what safeguards there are, we reply that the Home Secretary or a senior Cabinet Minister must sign a warrant. That warrant must be authorised by a chief constable or a deputy chief constable. A constituent may ask, "What if the Home Secretary is on the twelfth green? How can he sign if there is a suspected VAT or drugs offence, or vast frauds or security implications? How can we be sure that the Home Secretary or his alternative can be reached swiftly?" People are suspicious about the procedures that are followed, but when they are told that at present it is not a criminal offence to intercept someone's telephone calls, there is complete disbelief.
We are now on the Third Reading of a Bill which gives hope. I am appalled to think that the Opposition will vote against a measure which provides safeguards such as the tribunal and the commissioner. How can they vote against a Bill which they never had the guts to introduce when in government? It is quite disgusting. I have been saddened by the contributions of Labour Members. When they were in office, they did nothing at all. Yet for propaganda and political gain, they snipe at the Conservative Front Bench and at Conservative Back Benchers.
I shall watch with interest when they oppose the Bill, and I shall refer to that fact at the next general election. I shall also be interested to see how the minority parties vote. I shall note what Lobby they go into. Every sensible thinking person wants legislation to make the unlawful interception of someone's telephone an offence. The privacy of the individual still stands for something in this country, and the Conservative Government have provided the legislation.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) speaks for the country, as I do, when we refer to the dangers for those whose communications are intercepted without lawful authority. I am glad that we have finally reached the Third Reading of the Bill. I sincerely believe that the Home Secretary will now follow the proper procedures as laid down by the House. As we already know, if decisions are not arrived at properly, they will be overturned.
Unlawful interception is a serious crime, but the nation's security must be properly protected. The procedures which have been discussed at length in Committee will be strictly adhered to, and I am confident that authorisation will be granted properly and in the interests of the state.
It should be remembered that the Bill was the result of a commitment by my noble Friend Viscount Whitelaw. It was the Malone case which pointed to the necessity for such a measure. That case was of great interest to the country and to the Government. Even before the European Court gave its judgment, it was of particular concern to me, because Mr. Malone lives near me.
It is lawful to intercept in order to prevent crime. That view must be supported. The Bill will ensure that United Kingdom law is in line with articles in the European Convention on Human Rights. We need such a legal framework. Many people have been crying out for it for years, but nothing came from the Labour Government. A Conservative Government have restored the balance, and I am confident that this framework, which I believe the public will come to accept and respect, is reasonable.
We need the legislation to ensure that interception can be used where necessary to protect society. However, interception must be lawfully carried out, I am sure that it will not be used all the time. I also believe that the public will finally grow accustomed to it. There are no new powers in the Bill. Indeed, in some cases it will restrict powers. Many previous Home Secretaries have authorised the carrying out of interception. Any unauthorised interception will now be a criminal offence. That is to be welcomed, and I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome it rather than vote it out.
No warrants will be issued without authority. I have been worried about warrants being issued, but I am happy that they will be issued for the purposes of the Bill—


that is, in the interests of national security, to detect serious crimes and for the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Warrants will be issued in the same way as at present—that is, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Some newspapers were worried about intercepting material, but it was needed for authority. The intercepted material needed to be examined. The tribunal will have the proper redress to examine what is happening. That is right, and the revelations are all right. I shall support the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 105.

Division No. 186]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fletcher, Alexander


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, William
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, John
Galley, Roy


Body, Richard
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Ground, Patrick


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nick
Hanley, Jeremy


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butler, Hon Adam
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hirst, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Corrie, John
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, David (Wirral)





Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powley, John


Hunter, Andrew
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, Sir David


Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K. Harvey


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Silvester, Fred


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spence, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Spencer, Derek


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David John
Stanley, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) 


Maples, John
tewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Antony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Trippier, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Waddington, David


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moore, John
Walden, George


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Murphy, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth


Needham, Richard
Watson, John


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Norris, Steven
Wheeler, John


Onslow, Cranley
Whitfield, John


Osborn, Sir John
Whitney, Raymonnd


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wilkinson, John


Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wood, Timothy


Pattie, Geoffrey
Woodcock, Michael


Pawsey, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Porter, Barry
Mr. John Major and


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Powell, William (Corby)





NOES


Alton, David
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashdown, Paddy
Blair, Anthony


Ashton, Joe
Boyes, Roland


Atkinson, N. (Nottenham)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)






Caborn, Richard
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ian
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clay, Robert
Freud, Clement


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J. M.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dixon, Donald
John, Brynmor


Dormand, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dubs, Alfred
Kennedy, Charles


Duffy, A. E. P
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Kirkwood, Archy


Eastharn, Ken
Lamond, James


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Leighton, Ronald


Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Faulds, Andrew
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Field, McGuire, Michael
Frank (Birkenhead)





McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Meadowcroft, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, William
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William
Tinn, James


O'Neill, Martin
Torney, Tom


Park, George
Wallace, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Penhaligon, David
White, James


Pike, Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Redmond, M.



Richardson, Ms Jo
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. Robin Corbett and


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. John McWilliam.


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (S.I., 1985 No. 490), dated 25th March 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled.
I regret that it is necessary to have this debate in the shadow of what is probably the greatest threat there has ever been to public service broadcasting, the BBC and television standards. The threat is represented by the inquiry announced by the Home Secretary of 27 March, to be conducted by Professor Peacock, into an assessment of the effects of the introduction of advertising or sponsorship on the BBC.
This is the wrong inquiry and it is being chaired by the wrong man. It is the wrong inquiry because it is clearly based on the assumption that advertising on the BBC would be appropriate and acceptable, when it clearly would not be. It is also based on the assumption that the introduction of advertising on BBC television or radio is the only source of funding for the BBC other than the licence fee. But it is not the only other source.
If the Government were really concerned about the future of broadcasting, let alone the future of public service broadcasting, if they were serious about the way in which our broadcasting system should be financed, and if they were concerned to develop a proper, coherent strategy for broadcasting, they would have commissioned an inquiry into communications policy generally for the whole of the United Kingdom.
As it is, this inquiry is a shoddy cop-out and it represents the price that the Home Secretary has been prepared to pay to, as he believes, achieve the objective of satisfying some of his hon. Friends who want to see a reduction in the influence and the services provided by the BBC as well as an increase in advertising.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady. I know what she wishes to say, and I shall be coming to it.
It is the wrong inquiry and, as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) wishes to remind me, I said that it was also chaired by the wrong man.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: That is the remark on which I wanted to comment.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am afraid that the hon. Lady will not get the chance to say what she wishes to say in that case, because I am trying to protect the interests of those of her hon. Friends who wish to speak in the debate in the hour that is left to us, many of whom have asked me to make a brief speech so that they may do so.
The inquiry is chaired by the wrong man because, although Professor Peacock may be an estimable and worthy man, he is also well known for his free market views, for his support of laissez-faire economics and for his advocacy of such Tory measures as education vouchers. His views do not inspire confidence in either his objectivity or his impartiality on the issue with which he has been entrusted. Added to that is his public criticism of

the licence system as a means of raising revenue for the BBC and his stated public tolerance of advertising on the American television networks.
Given that kind of track record, it is no wonder that such a man should have been chosen to hold the inquiry, and it is small wonder that many individuals in broadcasting, especially in the trade unions involved in broadcasting, feel that the inquiry is biased in favour of advertising and that the report could well have been written already.
It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the Government and Professor Peacock have already arrived at their conclusion and that Professor Peacock is the man who has been chosen to make those recommendations and implement those proposals. It is difficult not to see the hand—on this occasion the malign hand—of the Prime Minister behind this proposal and this inquiry.
Of course, the Prime Minister is supported by the more philistine, unthinking and avaricious among her Back Benchers. Nothing was more disturbing and offensive than to witness the baying ranks of PR Tory Members of Parliament three weeks ago emitting clear spite, hostility and vengeance towards the BBC. They seem to be motivated by nothing more than vindictiveness towards public broadcasting, hostility to the BBC, and greed for what they see as the rich pickings likely to be had if advertising is introduced into BBC television or radio.
I say again that the Opposition are implacably and fundamentally opposed to the introduction of advertising on BBC radio or television.

Mr. David Maclean: Why?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Because we believe that it would damage the BBC, the independent television network and the rest of the media.

Mr. Maclean: How?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I should expect the hon. Gentleman to have done sufficient homework to be able to answer his own questions. As he has not, let me answer them for him. It would damage the BBC because it would inevitably lead to a lowering of standards, not just on BBC television but on independent television, and to producers and schedulers of programmes pandering — even if only unconsciously — to what they regard as the interests and demand of advertisers. They would tend to fashion their programmes and their scheduling to forms for which advertisers are prepared to pay the most. Inevitably, producers and programme devisers would respond to the lowest common denominator in establishing their programme priorities.
The hon. Member for Penrith and the The Border (Mr. Maclean) is no longer asking why or how. He seems to be easily satisfied. There would be a drive by the BBC to win bigger audiences, because that means bigger advertising rates, which means greater revenue. There would therefore be more worthless, philistine and superficial programmes. The consequence would be the type of appalling distasteful television which many of us have witnessed to our great dissatisfaction and which disfigures the screens of American television but which, apparently, according to the public record, Professor Peacock admires.
Nor does the Labour party accept that the introduction of advertising—even on one part of the BBC during a limited period of the day, on any of the BBC channels —would be tolerable or acceptable. Once advertising is


allowed — whatever its form and however minute or marginal it is — it will be irresistible in future. Home Secretaries confronted by a broadcasting corporation needing an increase in the licence fee to meet that demand would extend the allowable amount of advertising. There would be irresistible pressures to extend and increase advertising every time the BBC asked for increased financial support. That would be an easy option that few Governments could resist.
The introduction of advertising not only would lead to a lowering of standards in the BBC and independent television companies and to more demands for even greater advertising but would damage irreparably the independent television companies, commercial radio and local newspapers. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that implicitly in the inquiry's terms of reference and during the debate when he announced the increase in the licence fee and the setting up of the inquiry.
Clearly, there is a risk that the introduction of any form — however minute — of advertising on BBC radio or television would substantially erode the financial viability of independent local radio, local newspapers and, in many ways, independent television companies. Many of them would face the prospect of severe financial difficulties, if not bankruptcy, because the advertising cake is limited. That is not my assertion; it is the assertion of Sir Denis Forman, the chairman of Granada Television, and Rodney Harris — [Interruption.] I understand what the Government are saying. Of course Rodney Harris has a vested interest. That does not mean that his opinions are right or that they are wrong. I am merely quoting his opinion.
Many others make that assertion — not just the chairman of Granada or Rodney Harris, the media director of the advertising agency that started this whole debate. During the past two weeks, that agency has confirmed that many independent local radio stations may face substantial difficulties if advertising is allowed on the BBC. Saatchi and Saatchi has spoken clearly about the risk to independent local radio. Many small radio stations and local newspapers would be bankrupted if advertising were allowed.
I suppose that all those individuals could be tarred with the brush of having a vested interest, but, as I have said, that is no reason to disbelieve what they have to say or to suggest that their judgment is suspect. I presume that the Minister of State does not have a vested interest. If he does, perhaps he will declare it.
Speaking in the late night debate on 19 December, 1984, the Minister made out a strong, powerful and compelling case against the introduction of advertising on the BBC. He talked about feast and famine in the margarine industry. I am not sure of its relevance, but he clearly went on to say:
It is by no means certain that advertising revenue will continue to grow at the same rate as in the past 10 years. In fact, ITV revenue this year looks certain to fall short of the £1,000 million forecast for 1984, even though only two or three months ago it seemed likely"—

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is nothing about television advertising in the regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The Chair will decide what is relevant to the debate.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Minister of State said:

ITV revenue this year looks certain to fall short of the £1,000 million forecast for 1984, even though only two or three months ago it seemed likely to reach that figure."—[Official Report, 19 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 507.]
He then went on to talk about the sharp downturn in adverising revenue and how there would be great difficulties for the ITV companies if the BBC took the major share of the cake. He spoke about competition from the BBC obliging the independent companies to take a reduction in their revenue.
If any Conservative Members are worried about the likely consequences for all our media of the introduction of advertising on the BBC, they will see no more compelling or convincing case than that presented by the Minister.
Those are clear, good, compelling and practical reasons why we should be careful about any proposal to introduce advertising on the BBC. They are important and must be taken into account. Leaving them aside, however, the Opposition resort to the arguments of principle. I reaffirm that there will be no circumstances in which the Labour Government who will be elected at the next election will allow advertising on BBC radio or television.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could the hon. Gentleman be perst. aded to deal with regulation 2? It relates to the increase in fees, which is of great anxiety in the north-west.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady knows that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who intervened earlier, do not seem to know, we are talking about regulations that deal with the financing of the BBC. As part of the statement about the increase in the licence fee to which these regulations give effect, the Home Secretary announced the setting up of an inquiry whose terms of reference were to study the feasibility of obtaining the licence fee revenue which will be obtained by the order by means of advertising.
It is reasonable and acceptable, therefore, when discussing the financing of the BBC, to talk about the alternative means that the Home Secretary clearly has in mind, but which the Opposition feel would not just be damaging to the BBC, ITV and the media generally but would be completely unacceptable and indefensible in principle.

Mr. Richard Tracey: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall not give way. We accept that as the licence fee increases so it becomes more regressive and burdensome on low-income individuals and families. It represents, for example, a high proportion of the income of pensioners.
Many of our pensioners, particularly those living alone, are very dependent on television. Many of them are housebound; many are inactive, ill or disabled. Indeed, it has been said that they watch 20 per cent. more television than other viewers do. It is clearly unjust that after this order has been passed by the House they should be required to pay £58 to have the privilege of watching television, while many other pensioners, because they live in sheltered housing accommodation, pay no more than


5p. That is clearly wrong. It is a very deep and serious cause of resentment and bitterness. It is indefensible and cannot be accepted.
It is also wrong and unjust that hotels pay the same £58 to provide 15 television sets; they pay exactly the same price as one pensioner living on a single pension. We have the ability to change that and we should have the will to change it.
Many pensioners—hon. Members on each side have the letters and representations at their surgeries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are watching the football. Many pensioners are deeply anxious and distressed about their ability or inability to find the money that is required to pay the licence fee so that they can watch television not just in comfort but without guilt and without breaking the law. We recognise that, as the Home Secretary and the Government do not, and we shall therefore phase out the television licences for pensioners. We shall not be prepared to tax pensioners in order that they may have the benefit of watching television in their own homes.
We accept that that will cost the Treasury about £320 million a year, and no doubt the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will pour scorn on the amount of money that we are prepared to provide so that pensioners should have the ability to watch television without having to pay the new exorbitant fee. Yet, if we put this in the context of other tranches of £325 million, the comparison is not perhaps as odious as the Minister may attempt to make out.
In order to give all our pensioners a free television licence next year, we have only to take out seven months of the cost of the Trident programme. [Interruption.] It is a clear choice. This House has the power—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I heard very clearly your correct observation to the House that it is, of course, entirely for the Chair to determine the rules of order, may I draw your attention to the exact text of the order before us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that the debate must finish at 11.30 pm? Therefore, I ask for brevity. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have considered the order very carefully. We are discussing an increase in fee. All that has been said is relevant as to where the money comes from, the cost, and other matters.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you indeed are the very last person whom I would wish to challenge. I would, however, respectfully say to you that the order before us contains two elements — first, the title of the regulations, and, secondly and quite specifically, the increase in charges. It does not deal with advertising; it does not deal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the same respect for the hon. Gentleman as he has expressed for me. I have considered the order very carefully, and all that has been said about advertising, the cost and where the money comes from, in my view is relevant.

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: And very boring.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask for great brevity, because the debate will finish at 11.30 pm.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: This is a matter for a clear political decision, which can and should be taken by the House of Commons. Hon. Members on the Government Back Benches are entitled to take the view that they would rather spend £325 million on the purchase of a Trident missile system. [Interruption.] We do not share that view. We believe that that kind of money could be much better spent on providing the facility of a free television licence for pensioners.
The £325 million that would be required to implement our promise to give free television licences to pensioners is also less than the Government's current spending on production support for surplus cereals. Can any hon. Member defend the expenditure of more money on producing and storing food that no one wants or consumes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. He must not list in detail the alternatives that the money is being spent on.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think you will understand that it is very difficult to make a speech, given the constant barracking and harassment of Conservative Members. [Interruption.] They are making my point again. I think you would also accept that as we are debating regulations which will increase the licence fee paid by all our constituents, it is reasonable and in order in that context to refer to people who can least afford to pay that licence fee. Surely, then, it is in order to meet the argument that will be deployed by other hon. Members later in the debate by drawing comparisons between the large cost of implementing this promise and other expenditure that I would regard as non-essential. In the light of the examples I have given — and I could give many others — we believe that providing free television licences for pensioners at that price is a bargain that we are prepared to pay and that I am sure they would welcome.
We want to preserve the integrity of the BBC and to maintain the standards of public service broadcasting. We want to preserve the economic viability of the independent television companies, of independent local radio and, indeed, of local newspapers. We want also to protect the political independence of the BBC from the philistinism, the avarice and the greed that will be demonstrated tonight by Conservative Members. All of those things that we wish to protect are under threat from the Government. It is our mandate to defend them and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) took 24 minutes in a debate which must end at 11.30 pm. I shall try to be brief. His speech was typical of what one expects to hear from Opposition spokesmen on Home Affairs matters. It was memorable for the total lack of support that he had from his own Benches. His offensive remarks about those who happen to disagree with him were also typical.
I was at least glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not propose to divide the House. I hope that the regulations will go through without a Division, because I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right in his decision. I hope that he will have the support of the House.
I want briefly to make four points. First, it is a fact that the BBC as a service has to be paid for. When one considers all the services provided by the BBC on television and radio, the fact that they are provided at a cost per day of less than would buy a copy of the Daily Mirror or The Sun shows that it is good value for money. That is the view of the vast majority of people. Speaking for myself, I have had one letter expressing concern since my right hon. and learned Friend made the statement about the increase in the licence fee. It may be the fact that it costs more to post one letter than to pay one day's licence fee for the BBC.
Secondly, I am interested to see that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has chosen to leave the Chamber. I do not blame him. I am not surprised that he has put up the monkey rather than the organ grinder to speak tonight. Frankly, the shameless vote-catching pledge given on 27 March by the right hon. Member for Gorton, claiming that if the Labour party were returned there would be no television licence free for old-age pensioners, is a disgrace, and Labour Members know it. According to the right hon. Member for Gorton, who has disappeared, not only are they opposed to any form of advertising, but it will not be provided out of general taxation. The real honest pledge for the Labour party to make if it wishes to go forward as the party that believes in freedom of information is to announce tonight not that a vote for Labour is a vote for free television licence for old-age pensioners, but that a vote for Labour is a vote for an £88 licence for everyone else. That is what it would mean.
My third point is that there is concern among old people about the cost of the television licence, because it has to be found as one sum. When he replies, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give encouragement and support to the BBC by making it possible for the television licence to be paid for on a weekly or monthly basis. If it were paid for in that way, old-age pensioners would find it easier than finding the sum in one go.
My final point is about the inquiry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has proposed. I do not object to the inquiry. Personally, I would regret it if the BBC were to be financed by advertising. It is arguable that the BBC has gone wider than it should. I was a members of the General Advisory Council of the BBC when it started out into local radio. I questioned its wisdom then, and I still question it today. It is an area that could be covered by the commercial interest, but that has been done, and, in fairness to the BBC, it has been done successfully. I questioned whether it was right to go into breakfast television. That is a very small part. It is right that any inquiry should look at the role of the BBC and ask whether it is right that what one might call the peripheral areas should be financed in the way that they are.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that I believe that the central thrust of the BBC, which seems to me to be its national programmes on television and radio, has enhanced the standard of television. Those programmes have enhanced it generally. If we were to turn to having them financed by advertising, it would be to the detriment of the standard not only of the BBC but of ITV. I do not dispute the need to look at sponsorship and other matters, but I hope that I shall not see the day when my right hon. and learned Friend invites the House to support advertising as a means of financing what I would call the BBC's basic services.

Mr. Clement Freud: I shall try to be as brief as the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), with whose views I largely agree.
Many years ago a young man went to a police station and told the sergeant on duty that there were some workmen dressed up as Oxford undergraduates digging up Piccadilly. He then went to the foreman of the workmen digging up Piccadilly and told him that there were some undergraduates dressed as policemen who were going to try to arrest them for wrongfully digging up the road. He then stood by and watched the most tremendous fight between the police and the road workers. That is very much what the Labour party has done on this matter. The Labour party is so void of ideas that it has tabled a prayer for no other reason than to cause trouble among Her Majesty's Government.
It is right for the House to realise that. One is sorry to intrude upon private grief. Nevertheless, this is a prayer. Whereas reading it on the Order Paper made it sound like an agnostic prayer, having heard it, it is more like an atheist prayer. It is supported by three Opposition Members, and when it was presented by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) he totally ignored the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, against which he was praying.
When the Labour party was in government between 1974 and 1979, it had every opportunity to cut or abolish the licence fee for old-age pensioners. During the four or five years in which Labour Members had the opportunity to do that they did absolutely nothing, but now that they are in opposition they say, "Let us save £320 million". This is no more than a charter to rent a grannie. If there were legislation whereby pensioners would not have to pay a licence fee, all that would happen is that everybody would find a pensioner who would somehow apply for a licence.
When the Labour party was in government it did not even undo the 5p licence for pensioners in warden-controlled accommodation. It would not have been difficult for that to be done. The excellent Annan report said:
Moreover, other elderly people who were not eligible for the licence considered that it favoured those who were already favoured by living in a home or in accommodation with the services of a warden.
The Labour party is wasting the time of the House on what is nothing more than a villainous little prayer, by which it is trying to make trouble. It is total humbug.
I am in favour of the continuation of the television licence in order to preserve the independence of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I would not like commercials to be shown on the BBC. God help us if people cannot have one channel, or preferably two, on which they can watch programmes of quality that are not interrupted every few minutes. Those who watched the open golf championship in America and found that every few minutes the action of play was interrupted by yet another commercial know how appalling it is to be unable to watch quality television without interruptions. If this prayer should come to a vote, and I hope that it does, as does the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South, my right hon. and hon. Friends and will not support it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The 25-minute speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) convinced me, if I needed to be convinced, that there is a thought-free zone opposite. On a subject so important as the financing of the BBC it is appropriate that we should spend the scarce time that is available to us upon the key issues. It is a pity that when Parliament is provided with only a very limited opportunity to debate the BBC—about once every three years—it does not discuss the issues at stake.
This debate is largely about the size of the licence fee, not whether advertising should be allowed. I am content to await the outcome of the inquiry that has been set up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, although I disagree in principle with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle). At my instigation a debate was held shortly before Christmas on the possible alternatives which I hope will be considered by the inquiry.
This debate is also not about the editorial content of BBC programmes. My view has certainly never been conditioned by any criticism in that respect. On the contrary, many of the BBC's programmes are excellent, but that is not to say that some ITV programmes are not excellent, too.
I have two main reservations about the present situation. The first concerns the period within which the inquiry is to report. I believe that August 1986 stretches the time limit beyond all reason. If the report were to be available at the end of the two-year period—that is, by March 1986, in time for implementation in the year ending March 1987 —that would go a long way to reassure me. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be able to apply some pressure in that direction.
The second main issue is the fee. Two factors are involved. First, the increase is greater than the predicted rate of inflation not just over the two-year period but over three years, if we are to take my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at her word, as I certainly do. That lends credence to the view that the BBC, like many institutions, will be less rather than more committed to improving efficiency. The argument that inflation in broadcasting is higher than in the economy as a whole is a self-fulfilling prophesy. We must encourage the BBC, like any other institution, to create less inflation than in the economy as a whole and thereby help to reduce inflation in the economy as a whole. Much of the extra inflation in broadcasting is in fact due not just to overmanning in the BBC but to overmanning and restrictive practices in the IBA as well. That is one reason why, contrary to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South, I believe that it is important to have competition for advertising.
Secondly, the principle of the BBC licence fee has declined in legitimacy. In the days when the BBC provided a monopoly service, it was an easy equation for the punter to decide whether the service was worth the fee, but that situation changed with the advent of the BBC-IBA duopoly. Since then, technical change has brought cable television and it will shortly bring satellite television. Furthermore, many people now use their television sets to play video recordings which may have nothing whatever to do with BBC or, indeed, ITV broadcasts. Yet the

licence fee must still be paid. I therefore question the legitimacy of the BBC having a monopoly of funds from this source when it is no longer responsible even for the majority of the service to people with receivers.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider those two reservations. He may be able to reassure me on the time scale, but I remain profoundly worried that he has gone along with an inflation figure greater than that for the economy as a whole.

Mr. David Winnick: I wish to make just two points.
First, provoked to some extent by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party, I wish to mention the problems of elderly people living on their own. Labour Members believe that there is every justification for ensuring that a concessionary television licence fee is available for such people. For many elderly people, particularly those getting on into their seventies, television is not just entertainment but a link with the outside world, especially during the winter months. I believe that it is right to have other concessionary schemes for the elderly such as the bus pass, and I hope that no one is suggesting that this should be discontinued. If any Tory Members think that it should be, they should say so to their constituents. If we accept that it is right to have schemes for the elderly, then I believe they should pay a much much smaller fee than the proposed £58 for a colour television licence. Such a scheme will be introduced in due course, if not by this Administration and thereafter no Government will dare withdraw it.
I am strongly opposed to any attempt to introduce advertising in BBC transmissions. Only a few months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) introduced a Bill that would have had that effect, but it was defeated, mainly with the help of Labour Members. There is no enthusiasm in the country for advertising to be introduced on to the BBC. In the main, viewers welcome the opportunity to be able to watch television without having to suffer commercial breaks, and sometimes quite long ones.
There seems to be a lobby for advertising on the BBC on the Conservative Benches, but I welcome the remarks that have been made so far by Conservative Members who are opposed to it. I am sure that others want to argue the case for the introduction of advertising on to the BBC.
Whatever my criticism of the BBC — I was certainly critical of it during the previous general election because I do not believe that it was as free from prejudice as it should have been — it would be madness to undermine the professional excellence, independence from advertising and wide esteem, leaving aside political matters, in which the BBC is held in Britain and by so many abroad. We have had public service broadcasting for many years and anything that will erode the service that it provides, such as advertising, should be fiercely resisted. I hope that the Home Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues will resist the undoubted pressure from the Conservative Benches for the introduction of advertising into BBC transmissions.

Mr. Tim Brinton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) questioned


the need for a licence fee for the BBC. I suspect that we shall attempt closely to consider and scrutinise what the licence fee revenue should be used for, and that we shall be unable to do so without discovering what new finances would do for all other broadcasting.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) described the prayer as "villainous", a word which has been called into question. Perhaps it would be more apt to describe it as evil. If it were carried, it would condemn the BBC to a licence fee of £46, or perhaps nothing. It would certainly provide for no increase. However, Labour members have sought to defend the BBC. This is almost unbelievable. Why should such mischief be caused by those who are the defenders of the BBC?
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to concessions for old-age pensioners. He did so without regard to their means. Not all old-age pensioners are on the basic old-age pension. Some of them, including retired Prime Ministers, are quite well off and can afford to pay a BBC licence fee. We should protect old-age pensioners and the needy by providing a DHSS test to ensure that a concession is given to those who need it most. We must help the needy and reform the present system, but we must consider closely the entire broadcasting system if we are to contemplate change.
The £58 fee is becoming too high a target for too many people. The average income is stretched to find such a sum once a year. I applaud what has been said about weekly or monthly payments, which are a way round it, but we must ask whether we should use a compulsory tax, called a licence fee, to provide bread and circuses, chocolates and light entertainment, to quite the extent that the BBC does. We should ask whether we want the BBC to go into every new piece of electronic progress. Such issues must be considered when we are discussing the financing of the BBC and the rate of the licence fee.
I am adamant that any attempt to make the BBC advertise would be doomed to failure in terms of the quality of the BBC's programmes and the rest of the advertising world. That is not the way forward, but the Peacock committee will take evidence from many people. The way forward is to be constructive and to question whether, with multi-choice, people are prepared to pay a compulsory levy. We must ask whether we should find some other means, such as a subscription, and back up a base licence fee set at a reasonable level with payments for services.
Time is short and I have gone on for too long. I hope that this is the first of many debates on the future of public service broadcasting.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When the increased fee was announced on 27 March the opposition to the increase was strong on this side of the House. I am astounded that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) scarcely dealt with the hardship that will arise for the old and other low-paid people in the north-west if the increase goes ahead. I am astounded, if the rumour is correct, that the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. If they do not believe in the regulations, to which the hon. Gentleman hardly referred, they should at least have the courage to stand up and vote. As it is, precisely two Labour Back Benchers are present.
I should like some information about how the BBC is spending its money. I should like to know whether it is true that 200 members of BBC staff or, as has been suggested in another newspaper, a mere 140, are to cover the snooker championships in Sheffield. If so, why should the elderly and low-paid in my constituency pay for such gross overmanning? I agree entirely with those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have said that there should not be such overmanning.
Advertising is not the only alternative. Economy should be the watchword. If the BBC is to economise, it should do so not on invaluable services, such as overseas broadcasting, but on the frills. It should concentrate on what it does so well and leave the rest to others. I am utterly opposed to the increase in the fee and hope that there will be a Division so that hon. Members who feel as I do can vote against the regulations.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: When the regulations increasing the licence fee to £46 were introduced, I gave notice that I would not support any further increase in the fee unless there was clear evidence of the BBC actively seeking alternative sources of financing to cover at least part of its programmes. There is not the slightest evidence of such an attempt. The BBC has decided that it can rely on Parliament to provide it with a licence fee which will allow it to go on with its present programming.
It has been said consistently that there is something peculiarly British about the BBC and that there is an especially high quality which must be defended. One of the most significant television experiences of the past few months was "The Jewel in the Crown". That was not on BBC, which screened a cheap and nasty import called "The Thorn Birds." It was not on ITV that only a week or so ago a pop singer pulled down his trousers and exposed himself: that occurred on BBC, for which we are told that higher standards operate. It was not ITV which pirated a news broadcast only today; it was the BBC, whose standards are supposed to be so high that we would do damage if we introduced an element of the commercial.
My constituents believe that an increase in the licence fee to £58 is too much. That licence fee will operate for two years, and the Peacock committee will report in the meantime. Undoubtedly the BBC will claim, "We shall have to take a very long time considering and discussing it," and there will be yet another increase. That is unacceptable.
There should have been a simple, straightforward statement that the licence fee would be held at its present level, plus an increase of 5 per cent. for this year's inflation and that, within 12 months, the BBC should come forward with its own proposals for raising the rest of its revenue after that time. By doing so, we would have concentrated the BBC's mind wonderfully and seen the way ahead.
I trust that there will be a Division so that we can flush out Opposition Members who had the gross gall to talk about a concessionary licence fee when they know darn well that none of their hon. Friends is present to vote for it. I also hope that there will be a Division so that the 50 or more Conservative Members who signed an early-day motion opposing an increase in the licence fee will have a chance to show just how serious they are.

Mr. David Maclean: As a Conservative Member who signed the early-day motion, I came here fully intending to vote for the prayer, but when I heard the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) deliver his piece, I decided that there was no way in which I could go into the same voting Lobby as the hon. Gentleman.
I then discovered that the Opposition will not even press the prayer to a vote. The Opposition Front Bench are not supported by any of their Back-Bench colleagues. Tonight has been an exercise in sheer political humbug by the Opposition. They have promised the old-age pensioners that if they vote Labour at the next election they will not have to pay for a licence fee, without mentioning where the money will come from. We know that by the time the next election is held the Labour party's research department and all its pressure groups will have said, "Hang on a moment. There are others who ought to be included. What about the unwaged who are earning less than pensioners? What about those in the minority rights group?" In the end almost everyone will be exempt, and only 2 million people will be paying £200 a year for a TV licence. Labour's promise will be that everyone will be exempt and that the paternalistic Labour party will hand out free TV licences.
Two things concern me about the proposed increase to £58. First, it is three times above the rate of inflation, certainly in the two-year period, and above the predicted rate of inflation in the three-year period. I am one of those poor Back-Benchers who were not able to see the 200 pages of the Peat Marwick report which the BBC suppressed. There may be very good reasons why I should not be able to see it.

Mr. Brinton: In fact, the Peat Marwick report was published and placed in the Library, with one or two bits left out.

Mr. Maclean: I apologise if 200 pages were not suppressed, but perhaps the one or two bits that were left out would have helped hon. Members to conclude, "Yes, we will vote for a £58 licence fee." It is no good the BBC saying, "Trust us, we are efficient and we need this for our future expansion and development. Here are the reasons, but we shall not tell you why," especially when Peat Marwick Mitchell had to step in the day after the report was published to correct some of the misleading information which had been issued by the BBC. So much for high standards of reporting and broadcasting.
Secondly, I believe that the time scale is slightly too lax. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has done. I called for an inquiry into the scope, nature and financing of the BBC. The inquiry is to be welcomed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating it. It is not appropriate for us to talk in depth about advertising in the BBC or other forms of sponsorship. The inquiry must determine that. I am worried that after the inquiry reports in August 1986 there will be months of consultation, it will be found appropriate for the Government to issue a Green Paper, and we shall then discover that we are in the runup to a general election or that a new licence fee is required. That would be iniquitous. I agree that we should then say to the BBC, "I am sorry, but we shall cut off your licence fee and impose a new system." We must give it a run-in, and to do that we must have a shorter inquiry and

a full investigation of the BBC. Let us find a system so that we can put into force alternative methods of funding by the time of the next licence fee inquiry.
I must tell Opposition Members that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I also wish to see pensioners and the low-paid exempt from the fee. The way to achieve that is not to force others to pay an exorbitant fee, but to freeze the fee at its present level while we find alternative methods of propping up the BBC's finances. We must be fair to everyone and not dish out licences like a social service. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and his two hon. Friends who remain present have any courage or political integrity, they will force the issue to a vote. They should not go round the country afterwards saying, "We put down a prayer which opposed the terrible increase in the licence fee and, oh, if only you had voted for us we would have given you free television licences". That would be deplorable. They should have the courage to vote tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I regret that, because we have lost some time, it will not be possible to hear further speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom wished to participate. The debate is being held in the most absurd circumstances possible — on a prayer, with few performers in the church. The remarks of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) were scarcely worth noting, except for one passage in which he quoted accurately from a rather brilliant speech that I made in December on these issues. I found that thoroughly acceptable, and recommend it to my hon. Friends.
The important speeches have come entirely from this side of the House. I face the ranks of Tuscany, and happily they are not evident. Those of my hon. Friends who have taken the issue seriously from the word go, have once again demonstrated their genuine anxiety about the progress of the BBC's financing.
The Government's role in judging what should be a correct settlement of fee occurs every three years under the present arrangement. During that period there will inevitably be considerable pressure about what a Government should do at the vital moment of reappraisal. I thank my hon. Friends who have made their views known loudly and clearly. It is certainly in view of all that they have said that my right hon. and learned Friend has made this year's settlement of such a special character.
First, I shall seek to justify to my hon. Friends the size of the increase that has been made. I fully understand that an increase from £46 to £58 cannot be accepted easily, especially by those who are living on fixed incomes. However, as I suspect my hon. Friends are aware, the three-year licence settlement which preceded this proposal means that, at the end of the period, the corporation was running not at a £46 licence fee equivalent, but at a £51 licence fee equivalent. That is inevitable if one seeks to establish a flat fee for a long period. During the first year the corporation was running at about £50 million below the licence fee generation, during the second it was equal to that generation, and in the third it exceeded that generation.
It is perfectly true that during that period the corporation was also increasing its services and seeking to offer greater value for the money that it was asking the viewer to pay—as many Conservative Members would wish. It is not reasonable for my hon. Friends to say that


the job of the Government is to produce a licence fee and then to determine how to manage the BBC. There is no way in which the House, or indeed the Government, would wish to run the corporation and take over the role of the governors and the executive. I do not believe that that is what Conservative Members wish.
However, hon. Members expect the Government to provide for the next period major changes in the way in which the corporation should use its licence income, partially because they recognise that there is a significant alteration in the efficiency and productivity of the corporation. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend suggested that an independent inquiry should be held into its efficiency, and Peat Marwick Mitchell reported. I should make it clear that the £58 fee now proposed requires the corporation, bearing in mind its application for £65, to run the existing services at a higher rate of productivity than that which Peat Marwick Mitchell recommended in its specific objectives. It will require the corporation, which said in its application that a £60 licence fee equivalent is required to run existing services, to create a further improvement in productivity.
Secondly, when it comes to making a further extension, whether it be in development or in new services, the corporation must find existing services that can be covered by internal efficiencies and savings.
Therefore, during the next three-year period for which the licence fee has been set, there will have to be significant changes in the productivity and efficiency of the corporation. My hon. Friends were anxious to ensure that that should be part of the settlement, to determine once and for ever that there is no divine right suddenly to determine by application that the fee requested should be accepted under the threat that there would be major changes in what the corporation must do. The fact remains that the fee settlement, in relation to what the corporation sets out to do, is extremely tough. As Mr. Milne said to us the other day, having to forgo £350 million worth of revenue during a three-year period has required the corporation to take seriously into account the requirements for improved productivity and efficiency.
To deal with the licence fee period, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who I thought made a most trenchant contribution to the debate, asked about the time scale of Peacock and the relevance of the two or three-year licence period. I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his licence fee statement, said:
I have therefore decided that the present licence fee settlement should be for a period of two years with the intention that any possible changes in the system of financing broadcasting should be considered in the light of the committee's report before the licence fee falls to be further renewed. But if decisions cannot be made in the light of the report within two years, or if it is decided there should be no change to the system, this settlement will run for a third year with the licence fee continuing at the rates I am announcing today."—[Official Report, 27 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 480.]
I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that there is a possibility—I trust that it will be more than that—of the Peacock committee's report running to time, which means that it will be published by the middle of next year. That would influence the third year which my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 27 March. I fully accept the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to that objective.
My hon. Friend and several other hon. Members asked about the inflation rate. I must tell him that the inflation

rates within the television industry are substantial, as he will know. The House must recognise that this is not wholly of the corporation's making. There is a large question mark over the pressures on costs that are presently exerted in the ITV system. Hence, the Government's review of the structure of the levy could have an important role to play, because the terms of reference of that review suggest that we are not entirely satisfied that the present structure of the levy does not result in cushioning ITV companies against resisting cost pressures. That, too, will be an important consideration when we consider further financing objectives for the corporation.
Finally, in reaction to the Peacock committee, many of the comments made have referred to whether there should be change. But what I trust the debate has demonstrated beyond doubt is the crucial importance that this matter be properly examined. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) was right to say that the Peacock committee's examination must be done carefully, not rashly or wantonly. I assure the House that the Peacock committee, in its terms of reference, has been given a wide range of options, which will ensure that many of the propositions that have been suggested by hon. Members in their anxiety to move quickly to advertising in this or that section of the corporation will be taken on board by the committee and by the Government. The Government, not the corporation, will receive that report, and the corporation, I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), is not a party to the decision-making of that committee. That is the way in which we shall examine this matter.
With a licence fee settlement that, at the very best, is to remain unchanged for three years, and has been arrived at with a much tougher rein on the productivity and efficiency of the corporation, with the Peacock committee genuinely looking at alternative sources of funding—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 290.

Division No. 187]
[11 30 pm


AYES


Dicks, Terry
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Harris, David
Whitfield, John


Jones, Robert (W Herts)



Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David John
Mr. Peter Griffiths and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. Eldon Griffiths.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Amess, David
Blackburn, John


Ancram, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom
Body, Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Batiste, Spencer
Brinton, Tim


Beith, A. J.
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon






Brooke, Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Heddle, John


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hirst, Michael


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Favell, Anthony
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawler, Geoffrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Fletcher, Alexander
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fox, Marcus
Lightbown, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Freud, Clement
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Luce, Richard


Galley, Roy
Lyell, Nicholas


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
McCrindle, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Greenway, Harry
McQuarrie, Albert


Gregory, Conal
Madel, David


Grist, Ian
Major, John


Ground, Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Grylls, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maples, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Marlow, Antony


Hannam, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)





Maude, Hon Francis
Sims, Roger


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mellor, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Merchant, Piers
Spence, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miscampbell, Norman
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moore, John
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Ian (N Hertrdshire)


Neale, Gerrard
Stokes, John


Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steven
Terlezki, Stefan


Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Osborn, Sir John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Trotter, Neville


Pollock, Alexander
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Porter, Barry
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powley, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walden, George


Price, Sir David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wall, Sir Patrick


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waller, Gary


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walters, Dennis


Raffan, Keith
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Rhodes James, Robert
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitney, Raymond


Ryder, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Michael


Scott, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Carol Mather and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

PETITION

Transport Bill

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have been a Member for more than 19 years, and I have never before presented a petition. The fact that Gwent county council has asked me to present this petition on its behalf shows that the county of Gwent is concerned about the proposals in the Government's Transport Bill. The petition is signed by the chief executive of the council, Mr. Michael Perry, and by the council's chairman, Mr. Viv Etheridge.
The petition points out that if the proposals are implemented there will be fewer services, less reliability, and little, if any, co-ordination. The council fears
the possible withdrawal of the Council's concessionary pass scheme for the elderly and the disabled, and its replacement with a less flexible token based scheme.
Likewise, the council fears
lower standards of vehicle safety and maintenance and inadequate resources for enforcement purposes.
The petition goes on to say:
There are wider aspects to the proposals. Gwent is an area of high unemployment and low car ownership. Public transport fulfils important environmental, social and economic functions, the loss of which would be felt by all sections of the community. In particular, the loss of mobility for the non car owner will reduce job opportunities, which in turn will frustrate efforts by new companies to recruit and maintain their work forces. Business and the community as a whole will therefore suffer.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on "Buses" and the Transport Bill.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Post Office, Pontarddulais

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make known in the stongest terms the opposition of the people of Pontarddulais to the closure of their sub-post office at Bolgoed road.
I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on 28 February this year during the annual Welsh affairs debate. I then pointed out that the Post Office has a code of practice for the closure of post offices, which is supposed to take into account six factors. None of those factors seems to have been considered in relation to Bolgoed road post office, which serves people up to two miles away who will now have to walk 2½ miles to collect their pensions, benefits and stamps, because there is only one other office to cope with their business. They will have to join existing queues for service at that other office. Most of the people affected are pensioners who will have to negotiate a long hill into Pontarddulais. There is no regular or reliable bus service.
The closure will take place despite the fact that Pontarddulais is scheduled in the local plan, following the efforts of the local chamber of trade and County Councillor Gareth Williams, for further development.
There are six ways in which the code of practice should operate in favour of Bolgoed road post office. I have received over 100 letters from people in Pontarddulais protesting at the closure and asking me to do what I can to prevent it.
I shall read just three of those letters, which are short, to the point and representative, to illustrate the hardship that the closure will create. Miss E. Williams of 49 Bolgoed road states:
May I make the following observations in connection with the closure of Bolgoed Road Post Office.

1. In recent years there has been such a great deal of additional building of houses, e.g. Pentre Road and the new Council Houses in Pantiago (which also cater for infirm and disabled persons), that the above-named Post Office has served not only the upper end of Pontardulais, but also these new estates.
2. Planning permission has also been granted for a new site for approx. 80/90 houses on the old Brickworks in Boigoed Road, which would mean further business for this Post Office.
3. Speaking on a personal basis, my Sister (an old-age Pensioner) is Blind and the only time she ventures out is to collect her Pension on a Thursday. The other residents of this road watch out for her so that they may help her across the road. This is her only walk of the week and she feels she accomplishes something herself by collecting her Pension. There is no way she would be able to walk down to the Dulais Road post office.
4. As I work from 8.0 a.m. to 5.0 p.m. and have to travel, there is no way I can collect her pension from the Dulais Road Post Office, and this would mean I would have to collect it on a Saturday morning.
5. At present the queues in the Dulais Road Post Office are not conducive to Old Age Pensioners, many of whom find it difficult enough to walk distances and then have to stand for a long time.

Surely, in this day and age, when there are so many Pensioners, it is ludicrous to even suggest closing a Post Office which serves so many people so well. Also, when so many people now purchase stamps for electricity, gas, television, etc., this again is a service, and should be preserved.
The second letter comes from Mr. Victor Davies, of 11 Twyniago road, Pontarddulais. He says:
Dear Sir,
As regards the closing of Bolgoed street Post Office, Pontardulais, this will mean to the wife and myself three quarters of a mile walking, as there are no buses available. We both are pensioners and are over 83 years old, 'registered disabled' persons, and unable to walk only very short distances. How we are going to manage I don't know. We have no children, and no relations at hand.
The third letter is from Mr. W. B. Jones, of 208 St. Deilo street, Pontarddulais. He says:
I am in total agreement with not closing Bolgoed road sub-post office. My wife prior to her death was the sub-postmistress there for many years and I have some knowledge of how convenient it was for the aged, a few who are blind and many who suffer the malady of rheumatism, etc. Add to this the people who now live in sheltered homes, now opened in this area, the new housing estate at Pentre road with its young mothers and children, etc., then one can see where opposition against such closure stems from. I also cannot see what the 'Crown Office' in Swansea would save by this closure, for it is the Sub Postmaster himself who pays the rent, rates and other overheads appertaining to the business, not the Crown Office. The office in Dulais road is not a 'Crown Office' but another 'sub-office'…but with the closure of Bolgoed Road he would obviously get a higher remuneration, the saving to the 'Crown Office' would be minimal and would do nothing to alleviate the catastrophe of larger queues on the short and narrow stretch of road which is used by buses and other vehicles. It would mean the appointment of traffic wardens and even police at times, and our rates are high enough without this addition. So speaking as a healthy old age pensioner and for ones not so healthy, may your fight against this closure be victorious. We thank you for your help.
The Post Office document, "A Strategy for the Future", and Mr. Potter, chairman of Wales and the Marches Postal Board, speaking at the all-Wales conference on the closure of sub-post offices at Merthyr Tydfil on 15 February this year, said that urban sub-post offices must close so that the money saved can be spent on equipping Crown Offices with new technology, and on making them more attractive. The question is, attractive to whom? To the people in town who can already use a plethora of existing banks and building societies? One third of the Post Office's business is DHSS payments. Those customers need a local service. They do not want, nor can most of them afford, to pay bus fares to collect their pensions and benefits. The people of Pontarddulais tell me that they would sooner have their pensions and benefits paid into the bank than walk 2½ miles to collect it at the town post office.
Would the Minister, relatively young and fit as he is — and, at any rate as far as I can detect, free from arthritis and rheumatism — think it right that he should have to walk 2½ miles to collect his income each week? From his face, I note perhaps a lack of enthusiasm. Perhaps we are fortunate in this House not to have to walk many steps to enter the Members' post office. Yet this is the way the Post Office intends to expand its business, despite knowing that more and more of its customers are already opting for their pensions and benefits to be paid directly into their bank.
Mr. Potter said that if people use automatic telling machines outside post offices, they would go inside the post office to do other business. I disagree completely. People use automatic machines outside banks so that they will not have to queue inside, are not confined to one bank and can obtain cash outside bank hours.
The strength of the Post Office is its extensive local network. If people do not have a post office within easy

reach, they will not use the service except to stock up on stamps. The attempt to turn post offices into banks will hasten their decline, not reverse it.
What about the social functions, supposedly laid down by statute, that the Post Office claims it cares about? Certainly the Post Office does not care about the social function of Bolgoed road sub-post office. The Post Office informed me in a letter dated 7 August 1984 that pensioners could nominate someone else to collect their pension. That showed a complete disregard of the morning spent on an hour's walk to the post office and back, with extra time spent chatting to friends on the way. That is what many pensioners do. Apart from the fact that they enjoy it, it is good for them to get out and be independent. That will be denied to the customers of Bolgoed road because they would have to walk too far, but the Post Office does not care. The Post Office does not take these social factors into account because to do so it would have to cost them, and that it has been unable to get right.
Mr. Potter says that these closures are taking place because of the financial limits which the Government have imposed on the Post Office. He said at Merthyr Tydfil that the Government had insisted that last year's profits of £70 million had to be invested in Government stock, and that those profits could not be used for development, but only the interest. The Post Office strategy document says that the Post Office must meet the Government demand of a 4 per cent. profit on turnover for the financial year 1984–85. It seems to me that the Post Office is being asked to do so with one hand — its profits — tied behind its back in Government coffers. Certainly it is to meet this financial requirement that the Post Office is closing 5 per cent. of its urban sub-post office network, despite the social cost.
I sent the letters that I received, over 100, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for his examination. The reply I received from the Under-Secretary of State said that regretfully the Government's role was
confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall financial control";
therefore, the closure of Bolgoed road was a matter for the Post Office. I expect that the Under-Secretary will make the same response tonight. But I must tell him plainly that from the viewpoint of the people of Pontarddulais and mine that will not be a good enough answer.
Under the Post Office Act 1969, the Post Office became a corporate body responsible for its own actions. Clearly, if the Government's role is with broad issues of policy, and if the Government dictate how profits will be used, or in this case not used, then it is Government policy and Government action that determine what happens to local post offices. The Government cannot wash their hands publicly of the responsibility for closures which result from the policy they dictate and from their financial controls on the Post Office service.
The Government and the Post Office have underestimated the strength of opposition to the closure of sub-post offices. It is an issue that people feel strongly about because it affects their day-to-day living. The fact that over 100 people, representing, as families, well over 200 of my constituents in one part of Pontarddulais, took the trouble to put pen to paper, demonstrates how strongly people feel.
Therefore, even at this late stage, and despite the comments made in the House on Monday by the Minister


for Information Technology, I urge the Minister to reconsider his position and urge the Post Office to review the closure of the post office in Bolgoed road, Pontardclulais, I genuinely feel that the hardship to the people of that village in my constituency will be enormous and the service of which they will be deprived will make the quality of their lives poorer than it is at the moment, with the post office open.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on his tenacity in fighting the case in which he so passionately believes on behalf of his constituents. I have examined the quite thick file of correspondence that he has initiated. Perhaps he himself, in fighting this case on behalf of his constituents, has gone some way towards making a significant contribution to the turnover of the Post Office. Of course, that was not his prime objective. His prime objective is to use our procedures legitimately and properly to raise a matter of considerable urgency.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard Ministers say from the Dispatch Box that they share his concern, or are equally worried about one phenomenon or another, but I say to him at the outset that there is hardly a Member of Parliament on either side of the Chamber who has not been faced with excruciating dilemmas similar to those which the hon. Gentleman exposed to us when deploying his arguments.
The hon. Gentleman described in some detail the efforts that he has made to persuade the Post Office that the Bolgoed road post office in his constituency should not be closed. It is, of course, quite right that he should have undertaken those efforts on behalf of those of his constituents who use that post office, and I can understand his disappointment over the fact that the Post Office has, nevertheless, decided to close that particular sub-post office.
The hon. Gentleman explained why he believes that that decision was wrong and why it should be reversed. However, as he rightly surmised, I am not able to comment on the particular circumstances of the particular case or to make any assessment of the Post Office's decision. Later I should like to flesh out that observation by pointing to the fact that there has been no change in the procedure adopted by this Administration compared with the procedure adopted by the previous Labour Administration. The hon. Gentleman has not raised the matter as a party political point. He has not sought to sensationalise the argument in political terms, and I shall not respond in that way. However, I am sure that if he were to examine later this week the number of closures by previous Administrations, and the way in which the policy has been implemented, he would find consistency, but it is that consistency that is upsetting his constituents at the moment.
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his reply to the hon. Gentleman's letter of 11 March to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, said that he was unable to comment, and referred the correspondence to the chairman of the Post Office. That was not because he was being obstructive or unhelpful. He was following the clear and consistent policy of this Government and their

predecessors on such questions, which are operational ones for the Post Office to decide on, and are not for the Government under normal circumstances.
It should be clearly understood that the Post Office is responsible for running the counters network and that decisions about individual post offices are operational ones for the Post Office and not for the Government. This is in accordance with the clear distinction, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, between the respective roles of the Government and the Post Office Board. Since the Post Office was established in 1969 as a public corporation with its own board, it has been the policy of successive Governments, embodied in the relevent legislation, that decisions concerning the day-to-day management of the business are the responsibility of the board. The role of the Government is confined to broad issues of general policy and matters of overall financial control.
I think that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members of this House have constituents who are affected by post office closures. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are at this very moment being deployed in my constituency. Of course no post office closure is popular, because it will inevitably mean some inconvenience to people who will have to travel further to the nearest alternative. It is quite understandable that the average post office customer's primary interest is in the particular post office which he or she is used to going to and is concerned if a decision is made to close that office. But the Government are required to take a wider view.
As far as the network of post offices is concerned, the Government's interest and responsibilities relate to the network overall, and the Government considered the Post Office's proposals for the urban network where most of the controversy has arisen in this context.
The Government have frequently stated their recognition of the valuable role that post offices play in the economic and social life of this country. However, if the network of post offices is to continue to play such a role in the future it is vital that the Post Office, in running the network, should look to ways of improving its efficiency and effectiveness.
By its nature, the counters business is an operation that has high fixed costs, and the economics of running it depend heavily on the volume of business which is undertaken. I must stress that the Post Office is a commercial organisation, and it is under no illusions that it is owed a living. It recognises that there are effective competitive alternatives for many of the services available in post offices and is well aware that if the counters network is to retain existing business and win new business it must provide an efficient and cost-effective service at prices which customers are prepared to pay. The majority of the business undertaken at counters is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, work for Government Departments, public corporations and local authorities. They use the network because it provides a cost-effective way of meeting their requirements. It would be quite wrong to expect these agency customers to use the counters network irrespective of their costs, which are of course borne by their customers, taxpayers or ratepayers.
Since 1945, the Post Office has had a criterion of providing post offices in town areas at intervals of not less than one mile. This is not, and was never intended to be, a precise and inflexible standard. It represents what the Post Office has regarded as a reasonable balance between the service its customers would like and the costs involved.
The Post Office has not applied the criterion rigidly but has, over the years, made decisions about particular post offices in the light of local cirumstances. Up to the late 1960s the network grew as a result of new housing development population growth and growth in business. However, with some exceptions, closures were considered only when sub-postmasters resigned or retired and the distribution of population was not fully reflected in the provision of post offices. A review which the Post Office undertook in 1983 revealed an excess of about 2,000 offices against the general criterion. The excess of offices was particularly evident in the cities, especially the inner city areas.
The post office was, of course, aware that any proposals to tackle this excess of offices were bound to be unpopular and I think that it is to be commended in that it did not take the easy option of doing nothing but had the courage to draw up its proposals to reduce the number of post offices in urban areas.
The Post Office informed the Government about the outcome of the review and the proposals to reduce the size of the urban network. Our concern was to ensure that the proposals did not prejudice our commitment to the maintenance of a network adequate to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duty as regards efficiency and economy and social needs. The Post Office's proposals included its intention to consult the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Post Office trade unions and the Post Office Users National Council. It also confirmed that individual closure proposals would be subject to the existing code of procedure agreed with POUNC in 1981, and revised in January 1984 to include Crown offices, which provides for consultation with local interests before final decisions are made to close individual offices.
We were satisfied with the overall balance which the Post Office was seeking to strike between the needs of those whom it serves and the need for reasonable economy and efficiency, and that the proposals were not inconsistent with its statutory duty. That, however, is the extent of the Government's involvement. We are not involved in decisions which the Post office takes on particular offices, nor are we involved in the process of prior consultation.
That is the background. Perhaps I may now deal with some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made, although, for the reasons that I have given, my comments are of necessity general ones and not specific to the circumstances surrounding the Bolgoed decision. As I have said, the Government have to take the broader view and consider the network as a whole.
In undertaking the review of the urban counters network and in framing the subsequent proposals for reducing the size of the network, the Post Office's aim was to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the network. The Post Office is well aware that the closures are not popular, but it believes that the exercise is essential to secure the

future of the network to the long-term benefit of the community. The Post Office has the Government's full support in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the operation of the code of procedure setting out the process for the Post Office to consult local interests before closure decisions are made. That concern has been echoed by a number of hon. Members and I am bound to say that there may be disagreement about the interpretation of the code in some areas.
As I have said, the Post Office does not apply the 1-mile criterion rigidly and the code sets out the other factors which are taken into account. As well as the distance from other offices, it considers the amount of business done, the type of business and whether, for example, a lot of pensions are paid there, the difficulty customers would face in getting to another office—for example, whether there is a suitable bus service and whether there are steep hills—the ability of nearby offices to absorb additional work and the likely future development of the area.
The hon. Gentleman has gone through those factors and explained why he disagrees with the Post Office's assessment in the case of the Bolgoed road sub-post office. I am not in a position to make a judgment on whose view is the better one. Clearly any assessment is bound to be a mixture of fact and subjective judgment, but at the end of the day it is for the Post Office to make the decision. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in his criticism of the consultation process, but a distinction has to be made between criticism of a decision and criticism of the route taken to reach the decision.
In more than 10 per cent. of cases the Post Office has withdrawn proposals to close offices following local consultation, so consultation has certainly not been a cosmetic exercise. I think that that is clear evidence that the approach is not rigid and inflexible and that the Post Office takes the consultation process, which is not a statutory requirement, very seriously. It listens to local views, and when it has been convinced by the arguments it has changed its mind. To describe the process as window dressing or a sham, as some hon. Members have suggested, is to do the Post Office a grave injustice.
With regard to powers to intervene, section 11(2) of the Post Office Act 1969 refers to directions of a general character to remedy a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for the exercise of its powers. A particular closure decision clearly cannot be regarded as a general plan or arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman raised two or three other issues which, for the sake of further clarity, we may wish to pursue in further correspondence. I am grateful to him for raising an issue which has specific implications for his constituents but which is also a matter of general concern. I hope he will be reassured that we are aware of the issues and are anxious to respond in an appropriate manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Twelve o' clock.